Baroness Greengross

Sally Ralea Greengross, OBE, having been created Baroness Greengross, of Notting Hill in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life--Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Pitkeathley and the Lord Evans of Watford.

South-East Europe: Stability Pact

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the progress so far achieved through the Stability Pact for south-east Europe and with the funding provided.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are pleased with the progress of the Stability Pact for south-east Europe. It is a relatively new process and activities are being taken forward across its three working tables on democracy, human rights and economic and security issues. However, the Stability Pact is not a funding or implementing agency. Its intended strength is as a catalysing and co-ordinating mechanism for increased regional co-operation.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that there is to be a funding conference at the end of March and, indeed, that Bodo Hombach, the administrator, stated that this is very much the moment of truth for the Stability Pact. Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will be playing an active and positive role in that funding conference and that the necessary funds for the reconstruction and development of the region will be provided?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I confirm that Her Majesty's Government will be playing a full and active part in that conference and will make their necessary contribution when it is assessed.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not most important that the pact should not remain mere diplomatic words? Will the Government assist the parties to integrate their transport and energy systems and to make themselves ready to receive inward investment?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are co-operating fully in that regard. I understand the specific points raised by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may say more generally that the UK participates actively and fully in the pact. Following a UK initiative, an investment compact was developed and adopted at the pact's meeting in Skopje last week. We are also contributing £100,000 to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to provide technical assistance to the countries of the region and to ensure that practical measures needed to implement the compact are carried out. Our contribution is broad and comprehensive.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House about the pact's media task force and the part which the United Kingdom Government are playing in that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already given some information to the House on that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. The UK also leads the pact's media task force, which is developing a charter for media freedom. We hope to see that adopted in the near future. Today, at a pact meeting in Sarajevo, in collaboration with one of the regional countries, we shall be putting forward proposals for reductions in security expenditure and greater transparency in defence budgeting.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that World Bank economists, among others, have expressed the opinion that it will prove impossible to boost the economy of south-east Europe and make progress on the Stability Pact while the "black hole" of Serbia remains in the middle of it? What action do the Government plan to take, together with other members of the pact, to overcome this central problem?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Serbia would be in a position to take advantage of the Stability Pact if internally its systems were changed to enable it to do that. The way remains open for Serbia. The UK was pleased with the sanctions package agreed on 14th February at the General Affairs Council in line with our general policy of smarter sanctions. It is hoped that those sanctions will hurt those who should most be encouraged to change their minds but will acknowledge to the people of Serbia that we are not against them. We very much want them to become engaged and play their proper and full part in reconstruction.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister commit the EU to a long-term commitment to the Balkans?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, standing here, I cannot commit the EU in that regard. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the EU is committed to the stabilisation and association process. It is the principal contribution of the EU at present. It will offer stabilisation and association agreements to the Balkans once they meet EU conditions on democracy, human rights, market economy and commitment to regional co-operation generally. Such agreements are a way forward. It is hoped that the encouragement will be taken advantage of and will lead to greater stability and security.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some people--myself among them--wonder whether the Stability Pact is necessary? We already have NATO, the United Nations and the OSCE. Why do we need another pact? Another organisation is likely to be expensive. We should bear in mind that the Russians are suspicious of what is happening in south-east Europe. Is not the development of the Stability Pact likely to worry them even further about activities there?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we believe not. I hope I have made clear that the Stability Pact is not primarily seen as a funding agency. It is hoped that the agency will be a catalyst; a co-ordinating effort to bring together the donors and suppliers to achieve better synergy between the two. It will be a facilitating process which already has indications of success. Obviously we shall continue to work with it and hope that our aspirations will be realised to produce greater security in Europe.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister explain her understanding of the underlying long-term objectives of the Stability Pact? The Prime Minister, when in south-east Europe, spoke in terms of potential full membership of EU and NATO for the countries engaged. Is that really the long-term objective?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are very hopeful in that respect. If the arrangements and the agreements are followed through and the Copenhagen criteria can be met by the countries of the Balkans, that is obviously a way forward. We see changes taking place now in Croatia, for example, and we are hopeful that those beneficial changes can be enhanced and nurtured to bear greater fruit. It is a hopeful sign. The door is open for those who wish to take advantage of all the offers that are on the table at present.

Waste Disposal

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will promote both the greater provision of sites and containers where rubbish can be deposited and the effective enforcement of existing legislation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, waste disposal authorities have a duty to provide civic amenity sites at which residents can deposit their household waste. Waste collection authorities have the power to provide residents with containers, such as wheeled bins, for their household waste and to provide containers for recyclables and litter bins. The Government expect authorities to operate within this framework to deliver both effective waste management services and a clean environment.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may point out to him that there is a widespread view that the problem is becoming more unpleasant, increasingly costly and sometimes dangerous. I shall not press my noble friend for a detailed reply this afternoon. However, when the House--as I hope it will--secures a debate on the matter, can he confirm that the Government will give a very detailed response to the problem, not least because existing arrangements and regulations are plainly inadequate?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to tell my noble friend that, if he secures a debate on this matter, we can no doubt talk a lot about rubbish for some considerable time. I would certainly want to spell out the Government's overall strategy in this respect. However, as far as concerns measurements of cleanliness in authorities, I should like to record the fact that the Tidy Britain Group, which sets up an index for cleanliness in our city areas, especially urban areas, has noted an improvement rather than the reverse over recent years.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister referred to recycling. Does he consider that enough is being done to encourage recycling? Further, in respect of those materials that cannot be recycled, does he think that enough is being done to ensure that they should be incinerated and converted into electricity?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear that not enough is being done and that we need to intensify our efforts both in terms of waste management authorities and in terms of commercial and other activities. We have a target for reclaimed waste of 40 per cent, with 25 per cent being recycled or composted. That 25 per cent is well above what we are achieving at present, which is around 8 per cent. However, that target has already been achieved by some of our European partners.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one area where the Government could set an example is in dealing with the increasing amount of waste on motorways and trunk roads? The Highways Agency has a contract in respect of each area for the removal of waste. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a much more vigorous enforcement of the terms of the contract, with appropriate penalties when contractors leave roads in a filthy state?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that there are such examples on our roads. I can assure the noble Lord that the Highways Agency will pay attention to enforcing those contracts, but the objective indices that have been drawn up suggest an improving situation on our highways. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord's point that we could do better.

Baroness Hogg: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a great deal of fly-tipping takes place because sites that are supposedly available for dumping are not open at weekends? Can he say whether the Government's framework requires the sites to be open at weekends?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the requirements for civic amenity tips are that they should be reasonably accessible and open at all "reasonable times". However, the latter is interpreted in somewhat different ways by local authorities. So there will be some tips that are not available during weekends or at other hours that might be more convenient to householders. We expect local authorities to address those problems.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I take a slightly different tack from that of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Would it not be a better idea not only to enforce the contracts but also to put into force the existing legislation against those people who actually deposit rubbish in the first place?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to motorways. In that case, it may be slightly difficult to identify who deposited the rubbish in the first place. Clearly, where we can identify the offender, severe measures should taken and fines up to £2,500 are appropriate in those circumstances.

Austria

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have expressed any concern about the new coalition Government in Austria.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made clear their deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-Right party, which appeals to xenophobia. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, to combating all forms of discrimination, and to dealing constructively with the country's Nazi past. But we shall be watching them closely and judging them on whether they fulfil the commitments that they have made.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly the Government's commitment to gesture politics. However, as the French and the Italian parties and governments are full of re-cycled and unrepentant communists, can she tell us why we did not hear a squeak of protest when they were appointed? Why were the Government so shy about wheeling out their political conscience on that occasion?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, both the Italian and French Governments are constructed in a rather complex way. As regards this matter, we obviously have to respond on a case-by-case basis. The Austrian Government have within their membership an extreme Right-wing element, which is intrinsically against some of the fundamental principles that bind the EU together. We could not be silent. We were silent once before and, internationally, we paid the price.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps we should try to get away from all the controversy over this issue. Does the noble Baroness agree that this problem about Mr Haider's party arises wholly and solely as the result of proportional representation? Does she still think that it is a good idea?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, each country has to make its choice. It is the way in which Austria has chosen to form the parties. Noble Lords will remember that this was not a problem for Austria for 13 years and the way in which proportional representation brought forward a government seemed to inure to Austria's benefit. Obviously it is a matter of great concern that the construction of its government now is materially different.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are concerned that Mr Haider's FPO party will legitimise and increase support for other far-Right parties in the UK and in Europe?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are concerned about that possibility. It is not insignificant that 27 per cent of those who voted for Mr Haider were young males under the age of 30. It is a matter of concern. Other countries in Europe have experienced similar indications. Obviously it is a matter about which we must express concern and upon which we must keep a close watching eye.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness gently on what she wants to happen next. Presumably, if this is a policy it has an objective. Do the Government want the Austrians to go back to the cosy coalition that they have just rejected? Do they want fresh elections, which might strengthen Mr Haider? If there is no policy objective because, as my noble friend suggested, it is just a gesture tossed into the headlines, can the noble Baroness say how long that gesture will last?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is not simply a "gesture tossed into the headlines". Indeed, if I may respectfully say so, to put it that way does not give value to the seriousness of this particular situation. We are fully committed to the measures that the other 13 EU countries have adopted. We believe that it is important to give a clear signal of our concern at the inclusion of a far-Right party, which advocates xenophobia, in the government of another EU country. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and we shall watch to see whether they deliver. That is an important signal to have given. They have responded in a limited way. We are very much--if I may put it colloquially--"watching this space".

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, while I appreciate some of the answers that the Minister has given, there remains one big question; namely, given the fact that the Austrian condition is different from, for example, that of Greece 30 years ago when the colonels took over and where the objective was quite clearly to restore democracy, what exactly will Austria have to do at the end of the day for normal, bilateral relations to be re-established, and for Ministers of Her Majesty's Government to be prepared to be photographed with old colleagues with whom they were frequently photographed smiling in the past?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one cannot set this in stone but it is quite clear that the threat which is inherent in some of the statements that Mr Haider and others have propagated has to be demonstrated as not having any validity or strength. We simply cannot say that yet. We have had a helpful indication and a commitment from Austria. However, we have to wait to see whether that is worth the paper it is written on. Some noble Lords in this House will remember--this was before my time--someone else saying, "I have a piece of paper". However, Britain discovered what that paper was worth.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, according to the BBC World Service two countries--one of which is Belgium--have apparently made an application for Austria to be suspended from the European Union. I wonder upon what grounds it can be suspended. I think that I know the Amsterdam Treaty and, indeed, the Maastricht Treaty pretty well. There is nothing there which at the present time would justify the expulsion of Austria from the European Union. Will my noble friend confirm that there has been such an application by two countries? What will be Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards that application?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm that there has been any such application. There is nothing at the moment which would indicate that expulsion from the European Union is being contemplated.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while I fully understand the apprehensions of Jewish communities, because the army unit which I commanded in 1945 was among those who discovered Belsen, should not the new Austrian Government, which does not include Herr Haider, be judged by their actions and their plans? The noble Baroness has mentioned the Freedom Party espousing xenophobia, but have the Austrian Government yet proposed or done anything that is unethical?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I tried to make clear, it has been reassuring to hear the words currently spoken by the Austrian Government. We have to wait to see whether those words are capable of being relied upon. Implicit in the noble Lord's comments is the fact that we have to wait to see whether they will come good. That is what we are doing; we are waiting and seeing. There is a hope that their words can be relied upon, but there is at the moment no confidence that that will be so.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords--

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she has--

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers. However, I respond to my noble friend's gloom by saying that there is plenty of time.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in view of the preceding question, does not the noble Baroness agree that, rather than waiting to see whether the Austrian Government do everything right, it might be better to wait to see whether they do anything wrong, which so far they have not done? Furthermore, in response to a question on proportional representation, the noble Baroness said that it is up to each country to make its choice. Is it not true that in this case the Austrian people have made their choice? What business have we to interfere in the democratic process of another country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, we are most certainly not interfering in the democratic process of another country. It is for each country to decide how it wishes to vote and by whom it wishes to be governed. By the same token, it is for each country to decide whether it wishes to associate itself with any such government once it has been formed. We must not forget that Austria, as it is currently constituted, is one of the countries at the heart of the EU and therefore occupies a special place in terms of importance. We wish to give a clear signal on this matter. The 14 nations have done that in the stance that they have adopted.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that over the years Austria has made an enormous contribution to the Council of Europe and to the cause of human rights in Europe. Will my noble friend inquire whether the particular party in question will be accepted in any party grouping within the Council of Europe? Will she obtain an assurance from the Opposition that the Conservative group in Europe will not under any circumstances accept parliamentary representatives from that particular body?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord in that regard. I do not think that I can give a specific answer in relation to it. If the situation were to change, I would be most happy to write to the noble Lord.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, how will the policy that Her Majesty's Government are adopting apply to the new entrants from eastern Europe? The governments of those new entrants contain people who presided over tyrannies in eastern Europe. Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to apply the same standard to Hungary, Poland and to countries whose governments contain people who have carried out a doctrine of tyranny?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, at this point none of the countries that the noble Lord has mentioned is a member of the EU. I refer to the first Starred Question today. Of course we all know that there is much to be done in order to bring countries into alignment as regards the issues which we hold dear, such as human rights, democracy and transparency. All those challenges still exist. However, I remind noble Lords that Austria has already joined our family. It is important for us to look at the mote in our own eye before we try to remove the splinters from other people's.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is part of the duty of any government to express the concerns of their citizens, and that the Government are doing precisely that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I most sincerely hope that that is precisely what Her Majesty's Government are doing.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am quite old enough to remember what the days of Hitler were like and I understand the fear and the anger. But could I suggest that, in paying so much attention to this small, unpleasant creature, Mr Haider, who does not represent his country and is not a member of the government, we are giving him stature, and that is a terrible thing to do; it is a great responsibility? I suggest most strongly that the presence of the Austrian Foreign Minister in the Council should have provided the opportunity for people to speak to her and make it clear that we believe in the good parts of Austria and that we do not believe that Mr Haider--as I say, an insignificant, horrible little creature--represents anything serious at all.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am always refreshed by the noble Baroness's ability to describe the more unpleasant phenomena, and I cannot but concur with her.
	It was important to give a signal. The Government's response has been one of balance. We have given that signal, which has been responded to and taken very seriously by Austria. It is important to continue to reassess the situation and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that that is what we intend to do. No precipitous act has been taken in relation to Austria; it has merely had a very clear shot across its bows.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the British subsidiary of an Austrian company. Does the Minister recall that last month the Foreign Secretary propounded a policy of building bridges not barriers and of critical engagement with regimes with which we may disagree? Since he is following such a policy in relation to China, Cuba and Libya--which are dictatorships--why is he not following it in relation to Austria, which is a democracy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are certainly following a policy. There is no restraint at all in terms of trade links, and ambassadors are still present in Austria. Ministerial communication has obviously not continued and is in abeyance at the moment, but functioning communication between Austria and ourselves is continuing.

Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that until a few days ago a xenophobic party was in government in a part of the United Kingdom?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with that.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, perhaps I may press the points made by my noble friends Lord Hurd and Lord Dahrendorf. Will sanctions be lifted when the Austrian Government have proved their good faith? If so, what guidelines have been laid down for them to do so? Surely such guidelines are known to the Minister. Or is the Government's policy that, as long as the Freedom Party remains in the Austrian Government coalition, it can never be business as usual with Austria as far as Britain is concerned?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is far too wise to expect me to lay down in stone the Government's response. We want to make a proportionate and appropriate response to the situation as it has unfolded. We have made a clear decision not to continue relations with Austria on the same basis. We have communicated that to Austria and we have set the parameters. Those parameters, at the moment, will not change until there are factors which cause us to reconsider our position.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the United Kingdom fulfils the Commonwealth Harare Declaration principles of democratic representation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are, my Lords.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that on the whole democracies do not provoke wars, whereas forced and premature conglomerations of disparate nations nearly always end in conflict? Does she further agree that the European Union falls into the latter category and that the problems which are emerging in Austria are very worrying proof of that and of what may be to come?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will not and cannot agree with the noble Lord--with much regret, of course.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a statement which is being made in another place on the North Wales child abuse report.

Life Peerages (Appointments Commission) Bill [H.L.]

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a commission to make proposals for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Lord Kingsland.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Pilot schemes]:
	[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 96.
	Page 11, line 45, leave out ("when,").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should not like to think that the Committee is getting itself into bad habits by not moving amendments.
	Amendment No. 96 is a probing amendment which seeks to discuss the question of when people vote. We will discuss--I hope in short debates--"when", "where" and "how", but this amendment seeks to debate "when". Amendment No. 103 is linked with this amendment and addresses specifically the issue of voting on Saturdays and Sundays.
	It is interesting that the Bill gives local authorities the power to run experiments. One of the experiments they can run is to change the polling day from a Thursday to another day in the week or, indeed, to a number of days in the week. So we could be voting on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I believe that some of the experiments concern that issue.
	My amendment seeks to give the Minister an opportunity to explain to the Committee the Government's thinking in regard to "when"; what kind of proposals he has received from local authorities; and what he thinks are the advantages of voting over two or three days in a week.
	As I said at Second Reading, I am hard pressed to see any advantages. I certainly do not see any advantages for the foot soldiers of democracy--in other words, the people in the political parties who man the polling stations and who get out the vote. They have a busy enough day on a Thursday, from dawn until dusk in the summertime; and from dawn until long after dusk if the election is held in the wintertime. They have a busy enough day manning the polling stations, checking who has voted and pulling out their people.
	After all, the motivation behind the Bill is to try to increase the number of people voting. One of the ways in which people are encouraged to vote is by way of the "knocking up" carried out by the foot soldiers of the political parties. I suggest that if polling were held over two or three days, it may be extremely difficult for the political parties to cope because of the amount of effort required. Rather than an increase in the number of people going to the polls, we might see a decrease. So we have to think very carefully about the people who do that work.
	It may also be a problem for the people who man the polling stations for the returning officer. It will increase the number of people needed. While at the moment people carry out a very long, one-day shift, from seven in the morning until nine or ten at night, they cannot be expected to do that over two or three days. So serious issues need to be addressed when we discuss the question of whether we should vote over a number of days.
	The other amendment I have tabled deals with the question of voting on Saturdays and Sundays. In the part of western Scotland that I come from, and further north into Lewis and Harris--as in Wales and in England--many people still consider Sunday a special day. Some consider that it is a family day, but they believe it is even more special than that; they believe that it is a day on which work should be done only in extreme circumstances. They would find it very disturbing if they were invited to use their vote on a Sunday, and only on a Sunday.
	I accept that continental countries do so, but we have just heard from the noble Baroness from the Foreign Office that all the countries in Europe do not have the same voting systems. We should not interfere with, nor indeed copy, other people's voting systems.
	It would not be a good idea to have voting on a Sunday. There are many people, perhaps not a majority, but this Government are supposed to look after minorities--although not all, because the minority of the population which hunts foxes is not looked after and does not have its opinions heard--who believe that we should keep the sabbath and that there should be no compulsion to vote on a Sunday. The same could be said about Saturday when members of the Jewish community may find it difficult to reconcile voting with keeping that day as a holy day. Their numbers may be lower than the size of the population who keep the Christian Sunday, but they are still a minority who will feel strongly about the issue.
	My Amendment No. 103 suggests that if any movement is made to the weekend, it should be to both days. I shall have to be convinced by some fairly rigorous experimental work that there is any point in moving from a single day to more than one day. I shall certainly need to be convinced that a move to voting at the weekend is worthwhile. I believe that the number who find it difficult to vote at the weekend, because they may be away from home, may be greater than those who currently experience problems on a Thursday. I propose the amendments in the hope that the Minister will explain government thinking on the issue of "when", and also to lay down a marker to indicate that I for one would be resolutely opposed to picking either a Saturday or a Sunday as the single day of voting in this country. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interesting comments. I am particularly grateful for his sympathy towards the foot soldiers, as he put it. Many of my noble friends behind me would be impressed by the salutations in that direction as, no doubt, would many noble Lords in his own and other parties.
	I shall speak first to the second of the noble Lord's amendments, Amendment No. 103. I applaud him for having tabled it. It would be very wrong if any changes to our electoral procedures were to result in a particular group being put at a disadvantage. I hope that I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest, and, for that matter, anyone else's.
	Perhaps I may begin by quoting from the guidance which the Home Office issued to local authorities about how to apply to run a pilot scheme. It stipulated that among the material that a local authority is required to include in its application is,
	"An assurance that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation".
	That is obviously important. It is quite unambiguous. A local authority which is unable to provide that assurance will not be successful in its application. A scheme that makes it easier for the majority but significantly more difficult for the minority to vote evidently does not meet the test.
	Those are not merely words from the Home Office. They have been translated into action. A number of local authorities which have applied to run pilot schemes at the coming May's local elections have had their applications turned down simply on the grounds that a particular religious group might have been put at a disadvantage. Indeed, we have gone even further than the amendment. A number of schemes involving both Saturday and Sunday voting have been turned down because the polling hours were longer on the Saturday than the Sunday--or vice versa--and the Home Secretary rightly took the view that that could have a discriminatory effect.
	I should mention that those decisions were taken in consultation with representatives of the opposition parties who are happy with the approach that my right honourable friend adopted. There is widespread support for it. More generally, perhaps I may usefully quote what the Home Secretary said during Second Reading in another place:
	"If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. There are members of the Jewish community who would not wish to vote on a Saturday and there are members of other communities ... who have strong feelings about the observance of [Sundays]".--[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/99; col. 172.]
	I hope therefore that I have been able to reassure the Committee that the Government are fully alert to the needs of those of strong religious persuasion and that we shall do nothing that is detrimental to the interests of such people. I hope that that is a clear statement which will give the noble Lord the reassurance he seeks.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 96, which goes much further. If passed, it would, as I understand it, preclude the running of pilot schemes which involved early voting, changes in polling hours or voting on days of the week other than Thursdays. I should be grateful for the noble Lord to confirm that that is his intention. I cannot believe that he really wants to rule out--

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it may help if I save the Minister the next two paragraphs. I believed that I had made clear at the beginning that this is entirely a probing amendment to enable us to discuss "when" and to discover exactly what the Government are thinking. The Minister does not need to assume that I intend to press the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for that clarification. However, I was trying to get to the heart of the noble Lord's intent. I cannot believe that he wants to rule out a large number of the proposed pilots. If that is clear, then I am happy with that. As I explained, I have some sympathy with the restrictions that the noble Lord seeks to place on Saturday or Friday voting, but the wider limitation that he has proposed would make little sense.
	Pilots have been put in place to test the arrangements. That is an important issue. I would have hoped that the noble Lord and other Members of the opposition parties would understand the value of the pilots. If we test them and they work, then clearly they can have wider application. It would be unreasonable and unfair at this early stage, when we are trying out new ways of including people in the electoral process, to rule out anything which has value and merit. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Fookes: It may of interest to the Committee if I describe briefly a pilot scheme which the city of Plymouth is seeking to introduce on early voting. The scheme seeks to introduce voting on Friday 28th and Saturday 29th April--on Friday from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.--at one central location, to be heavily advertised beforehand. I am not sure whether that would be acceptable to my noble friend Lord Mackay, but it may be of interest to consider how one authority is seeking to implement a pilot scheme.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank my noble friend for that information, which illustrates one of the problems. I do not know the size of the Jewish population in Plymouth, but some may feel unable to vote on the Saturday. I suppose that the experiment allows them to vote on the Friday. It will be interesting to see whether the Government agree to that pilot and, if so, what are the results. A point arises from that matter, but I shall come to it in a later amendment.
	I repeat that this is entirely a probing amendment to try to have a discussion on what the Government mean by "when". The Committee is well used to probing amendments. The intention is not to replace the word "when"; the proposal is merely a peg on which to hang a debate about "when". I am pleased to hear the Minister quote his right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the question of Saturdays and Sundays. That goes a long way to reassure me. I know that it will reassure many people in the United Kingdom who believe either in keeping Saturday as a holy day, or indeed, certainly in the case of the West Highlands, in keeping Sunday as a holy day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 11, line 45, leave out ("where").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment is entirely a probing amendment in order to discuss the question of what the Government mean by "where". Traditionally in this country we have voted in schools, town halls and buildings of that nature. I gather that the experiments seek to introduce voting in other places. For example, in the Minister's Written Answer to his noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath on 1st February, reference is made to a "mobile ballot box". Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he conceives of such a thing. I have heard of mobile shops and many other mobile entities, but a mobile ballot box is rather novel. Perhaps the Minister will explain what is meant by it.
	I understand also that there are propositions about polls being held in supermarkets, although I do not see any mentioned in the noble Lord's answer to his noble friend. I have some reservations about that. Indeed, I have tabled subsequent amendments in order to make sure that that is done in an above-board manner. Some supermarkets are associated with senior politicians. There is a noble Lord on the Government Front Bench in this House who has a supermarket chain bearing his name. Until very recently one of my honourable friends in the other place ran a major supermarket chain. I am not entirely sure whether the governing party would have been happy if polling stations had been set up in Asda while Mr Archie Norman was still running it. It might have thought that that was not quite right because Mr Norman might use his position to rearrange the shelves near the polling booth or whatever. The same could be true--

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I find that argument most extraordinary. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that someone would be so devious--someone as senior as those to whom the noble Lord referred--that he would rearrange the shelves in his shops in order to make sure that the polling booth was where he wanted it? That is a nonsense argument and one which I hope is a joke.

Lord McNally: Before the noble Lord admits that to be a joke, given some of the shenanigans we have seen from Millbank over the selection of their candidate, is not anything possible these days?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Anything is possible these days, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. The shelves would have to be rearranged. Both the supermarkets I go to--they are different chains--have newspaper stands immediately at the entrance. On newspaper stands there tend to be newspapers. On a polling day, especially for a general election, those newspapers would contain political information. In the curtilage of the public buildings where polls are held no political material is allowed. That is right and proper. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, those are the kinds of questions that would have to be answered in relation to supermarkets. The shelves would have to be rearranged. After all, if I wanted to help, let us say, the Conservative Party--I do not think that it is all that machiavellian--I could arrange that the Daily Telegraph was the foremost newspaper on the news stands. If I wanted to help the Labour Party, I might make the Mirror--

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I find this most extraordinary. Local elections are governed by rules. The rules state that there should be no political advertising of any kind within a space round the polling station. Yes, shelves would have to be moved, but that does not mean that it would be possible to put the Daily Telegraph in front of the polling station.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With all due respect, the noble Baroness is making my point for me. One is not allowed to have that kind of material round a polling station. So I want some kind of explanation from the Minister as to how the Government will put polling stations into supermarkets without doing a lot more than just putting in the polling stations. How will they ensure that the electoral laws are being obeyed? That is a simple question. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for helping to make it a little clearer.
	I am also concerned about the politics of the matter. I know some people who, perhaps quite wrongly, would find it very hard to go into a supermarket run by the Co-operative in order to vote. They might think that that was quite wrong and that they were being asked to go into something which they associate with the Labour Party. That may be right or wrong, but I know that they do that. They might think that that was hardly a neutral place in which to vote. Some people on the Left might think that going into the capitalism of a supermarket was not the right place in which to vote. We have to think very carefully about this matter.
	In addition, the supermarket might be quite keen to get the polling station rather than its competitors because that would draw in people to vote in the supermarket on that day. With a bit of luck those people might then do some shopping. That is what supermarkets are about. That is why they give the free offers: "Come and have a free ballot today and then do your shopping". They might even give discounts on shopping on that day to encourage people in. Perhaps that is what is intended in order to try to increase the turn-out.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would run through what exactly the Government have in mind when it comes to changing the place of voting. What is a mobile polling station? How do they envisage that working? If we to go into places like supermarkets and shopping malls, how will they ensure that the same rigid rules, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould has rightly drawn to our attention, are applied in those supermarkets as are applied currently in the public buildings where we are used to casting our votes? I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I wish to refer to the noble Lord's final point about the buildings in which we are used to voting. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever voted in a caravan, but I certainly have. We have always had moveable polling stations and we have always managed to abide by the rules that govern local government when that has happened. It has been done for the convenience of the electors, in order to ensure that they can get to the polling station. I hope that that will continue.
	I am very interested in the concept of mobile polling stations. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the new democracies and how they encourage people to vote. I found it fascinating to learn that polling stations are taken to hospitals and old people's homes so that people can register their vote and not miss out by having to go through an absent voting scheme. I should like to hope that we might be as imaginative and as thoughtful as those countries are in providing the best possible means of making it easier for people to vote.

Lord Goodhart: I can go a little of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but not as far as he goes. I find a little far-fetched the concept that Conservative-minded supermarket owners might fill the shelves near the polling station with bottles of Haig whisky. Indeed, I would certainly welcome the idea of having mobile polling stations in a shopping mall or set up in a pedestrianised shopping street. The one point on which I feel some concern is having polling stations inside supermarkets or other retail premises. Commercial matters can arise there. It can be regarded as giving that particular supermarket an advantage over its rivals. People may say, "Let's go and vote and do our shopping at the same time". I am not sure that having people going up and down the aisles and checking out at the tills while one is a few feet away casting one's vote is the way I should like to see voting carried out. I have reservations about the idea of polling stations being situated inside retail premises.

Lord Jopling: I have listened to the debate with a good deal of interest. I have been trying to put the comments that have been made by Members of the Committee alongside a most helpful brief I received from the Local Government Association--I imagine that many Members of the Committee have the brief--in which are listed at the back the applications that have already been made for various pilot schemes. Forty-four local authorities have proposed a total of 64 different pilot schemes. I am interested to see that there are only four applications for pilot schemes regarding where one votes out of 64. That does not seem to reflect very much interest. With regard to the debate we had a few minutes ago about when people should vote, there were 27 applications, which seems to be rather a lot. Almost all of those were with regard to early voting and only six were with regard to weekend voting. It is significant that only four applications have been made with regard to where one votes. Interestingly, all had regard to mobile ballot boxes; none covered the siting of polling stations in supermarkets. I agree with the comments of a number of previous speakers. It does not make too much sense to start changing the format of a supermarket in order to embrace a polling station. I understand that those who run supermarkets give huge attention to the use of space. Surely fundamental changes in the supermarket structure would be necessary in order to accommodate a polling station.
	Like the noble Lord who has just spoken and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I have some interest in "mobile polling stations"; however, I am not sure what is meant by the term. Do we mean a caravan which is moved to a polling area and placed in one spot for the period when the polls are open? Like the noble Baroness, I remember caravans being used as polling stations in my former constituency. There is nothing wrong with that. But when I think of mobile polling stations, I am inclined to think more of the possibility of their being moved around. My former constituency in the Lake District included a large number of elderly people, as there were a large number of retirement homes. I could envisage it being helpful if arrangements could be made for a mobile polling station to call at certain times on retirement homes where the residents could come out and vote in person. I have always found that elderly people particularly like voting in person and much prefer it to a postal vote. All of us with experience of the elderly know their fierce sense of independence and how they like to make the effort to go to the polling station. Such an arrangement would be helpful for retirement homes.
	A list of local authorities have made applications for pilot schemes; however, I see practically no interest in anything other than mobile polling stations, and not much interest in those. Therefore, I hope that our thoughts will be concentrated on mobile polling stations and not on any of the other options.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My noble friend Lord Mackay has dealt with this proposal in a particularly even-tempered fashion. To that extent, I think he is wrong. If he reflects on his own political involvement, he will know that, however composed people may be during a general election campaign, when it comes to polling day, emotions tend to be somewhat aroused. Over the past 20 years, I have been engaged in many arcane arguments about whether posters can be leant against the railings of a school as opposed to being attached to them, with the consequence that the local chief constable has been telephoned. All manner of people become extremely excited about these events. Even-tempered as my noble friend may be about this matter, he is absolutely correct to understand that it is an issue that could cause real difficulty. I have never been more vigorously castigated by political opponents than when I once inadvertently entered a polling station wearing my party's favours. I was taken apart by those who were doing duty as polling agents.
	Am I to understand that if a polling station is to be within a supermarket, no one would be allowed to display their party favours; or, on the contrary, among and around the baked beans could we marshal an army of those wearing blue rosettes and that would be legitimate, while five yards away in what was a temporary polling station people were meant to be given the occasion to cast their vote completely freely and without any interference? There is real issue here, and clear rules are needed.
	Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I have no difficulty at all with the idea of mobile polling stations. Indeed, the idea of a caravan being placed in the car park of a huge supermarket such as Sainsbury at Nine Elms where people coming to do their shopping could slip in and vote and around which there would be a kind of cordon sanitaire, presents no difficulty. However, if the idea is that when people enter a polling station there are newspapers and all manner of things around and, frankly, a large number of people milling around with no interest whatsoever in voting, there really needs to be a requirement that we know precisely what would be permitted and what would not. I urge the Committee to note, as those who have engaged in party politics know, that as the day wears on, emotions can become very frayed indeed.

Baroness Fookes: I hope that the idea of mobile polling stations will be pursued vigorously and in detail. I have one concern. If they are to be of the caravan or van type, there may be difficulty for those who are disabled in mounting the steps. They can often be quite steep. One would need to look carefully at precisely the kind of vehicle that would be used.
	I, too, like the idea enunciated by my noble friend of having a mobile polling station in a supermarket car park, but certainly not anywhere within the building. A car park is one thing; the supermarket itself is quite different.

Lord Smith of Leigh: First, perhaps I may declare an interest as one of the foot-soldiers of politics who takes a great interest in these matters. The proposal challenges the 19th century assumptions about where people vote. We have always voted in public buildings, often in schools. But nowadays, when we are thinking about raising standards in schools, and whether a day's schooling should be lost, we need to think whether schools are the best places for people to vote.
	As my noble friend Lady Gould said, mobile polling stations are not new in political activity. They exist in polling districts where there are no suitable public buildings. I agree entirely with the previous speaker regarding access. That is a critical point in relation to mobile stations. We cannot always obtain the type that are accessible. Certainly, the more people are interested in the idea, the more difficult it may become. We must not assume that mobile stations will be available everywhere when required; we shall all require them on the same day. Therefore, those who need them will have to book early, and the type that have ramps for easy access will tend to go first, leading to problems for the elderly.
	I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, on the need for the elderly to get out physically and vote. It is an activity that they enjoy. They are much more committed than many of the younger generation. I think the noble Lord's point related not so much to a mobile polling station, but to mobile ballot boxes. That possibility should be examined.

Lord McNally: This debate has given a whole new meaning to "chasing the vote"! I should like to clarify one point about the term "mobile". We all have experience of caravans being used as polling stations, but do the Government envisage experiments where a mobile station may be located at more than one place during a polling day--for example, at a railway car park during the morning and evening rush hour, and deployed to a shopping centre in the afternoon? Will there be more than one location for a mobile station, or will it simply be in one place?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for providing us with a good excuse to "go the round" on this one. That is very helpful. I was entertained to hear the noble Lord becoming slightly "moral" in his remarks, but we shall put that to one side.
	There have been a number of useful contributions. I shall attempt to answer the points made as best I can. The idea of using mobile polling stations is very much targeted on old people's homes (if I may use that term). A mobile facility can be taken to any number of locations during the course of polling day (or days) to assist elderly people to cast their vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made the very important point that these structures must give easy access. The Home Office already makes available grants for temporary polling stations to provide easy accessibility. Whether one uses the same mobile facility to visit railway station car parks, bus stations, park-and-ride stops or whatever, is something that local authorities must work out.
	I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the pilot schemes. He is quite right that there are not many schemes which do other than seek our endorsement of early voting systems, which is understandable. In this field it is still early days. There are some interesting innovations; for example, electronic counting and voting, and so on. Applications for mobile voting have been received from two very different authorities: Windsor and Watford. We must study carefully how they make progress with the mobile facilities during local elections this year.
	A concern was raised about supermarkets. Brighton and Hove Council is first in a number of areas. Last year it used Asda. No doubt a good Labour council has contributed to the profits of the former employers of Mr Norman.

Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord referred to requests for mobile voting facilities from Windsor and Watford. According to my list, those authorities also include Sunderland and Norwich.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction. Having checked my list, it includes both local authority areas, together with other initiatives.
	The Asda supermarket polling station was very successful and increased the turn-out in that locality, which was a marina site and a popular place for second homes. That was a helpful and well-conducted exercise. We seek to bring forward in the pilots new and different initiatives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, was absolutely right. These initiatives can lead to a good deal of heated discussion and debate. We must be careful that in introducing them we do not upset people--for example, that the job of those who staff them is not made more difficult--or overburden the police, who have a difficult task to perform on polling day.
	If the guidelines are followed and the returning officer is satisfied that the polling station arrangements comply with the statutory requirements, I see little difficulty. A screened-off area in a discrete part of a building can work wonders. Last year I voted in a pub located just round the corner from the home of my noble friend Lady Gould. That polling station was screened off from the pub and was open all day. Although there were not floods of people--it was the euro-elections--the polling station was popular with, and well used by, those who knew where it was and wanted to participate.
	It is strange that we have a history of voting only in draughty school halls and old church buildings. The distribution of those buildings is not necessarily best suited to today's diverse communities. If we encourage people to vote because the buildings that we make available are more accessible and better used, that is a good thing. That is what the pilot schemes attempt to achieve.
	I hope that my response has given the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, an idea of the scope of our thinking. I am grateful to him for tabling a valuable probing amendment which appears to have elicited from all parts of the Committee a good deal of support for new and different places in which to vote. If that means that we can have longer polling times, that is all to the good. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Sandwich: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he wants to reply to his noble friend who asked whether a search should be made for an alternative to schools. It is a matter of pride not only for school governors and staff but for children that their schools are the centre of attention, at least for one day. Schools conduct their own mock elections. Often those activities are focused on general and local elections, both of which are significant events for schools.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a useful point. In many areas, school buildings are the only major community facilities. They are a source of great pride and interest and become a focus for community activity. All that we seek to do in this legislation is to provide an opportunity for alternative premises to be used in addition to school buildings. Sadly, some school governors take the contrary view. They do not want the school to close for the whole day and the building to be used in this way; they want to carry on the normal routine. One understands that point of view, particularly if it enjoys the support of parents. School buildings will retain their importance in the conduct of democracy, both nationally and locally, but we should look for alternative buildings so that we have a good range, and perhaps a better distribution, of buildings to be used for the purpose.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. This is a necessary debate if we are to move away from the traditional voting system. Perhaps I may give the Minister a small piece of advice based on his last point. For very obvious reasons, the one way to make the noble Lord and his Government deeply unpopular with schoolchildren would be to decide not to locate polling stations in schools. It might even make them deeply unpopular with school teachers, but let us leave that to one side!
	We have made a little progress on the question of supermarkets. Although perhaps I attempted to treat it in a light-hearted manner, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie reminded me of some of the battles that had been joined as to where party literature and posters could and could not be placed. Such matters would give rise to difficult issues in supermarkets. The concept of the reds, blues and yellows going into various shopping alleys to look for particular products may provide entertainment for a little while. One may have a game as to what they are shopping for as they mill around, and take the whole day to do it. However, there are serious problems if one uses buildings in which there are people present for other legitimate reasons.
	Mobile facilities will give rise to difficulties; for example, the identification of those who have voted. I do not think it can ever be said that people must vote between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock at the mobile station at their old folks' home. One would need another fixed polling station. There would have to be a relationship between the two polling stations to identify who had voted. That probably takes us into the realm of electronic voting, which I understand is also to be the subject of trials in some local authorities.
	We have had a useful debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tempted me to believe that voting in supermarkets would be a splendid idea. Close to the entrance to a supermarket, for example, there might be a display of alcoholic refreshments from my native country, bearing the slogan "Don't be vague, vote for Hague". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]

Lord McNally: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 12, line 1, at end insert ("and
	(c) the system of voting;").

Lord McNally: When we debated the issue last night the Minister was clear that the Greater London elections were local elections. Who am I to deny him that? It is strange, therefore, that the largest of all local elections will be conducted under a system of proportional representation. The Bill is supposed to encourage experiment on the when, where and how of voting. Yet the Government have held back from experiment with the system of voting.
	Let me confess, before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reminds me, that during our debate on the European Parliament elections, I was overly optimistic about the impact of proportional representation on the willingness of the electorate to vote. That is why there is need for further experiment. There is no doubt that local elections are bedevilled by low turn-out. I shall not make the ambitious claims that I made at the time of the European elections: that proportional representation at local level will immediately galvanise the population to use their vote. However, I believe that it is worth putting that concept forward as regards one of the experiments. If the London elections show a higher turn-out than other local elections, I hope that we shall be entitled to draw comfort from that impact of proportional representation.
	Proportional representation in our local government might be a way of removing some of the abuses that have emerged in what have become one-party states dotted around our local government system. I shall not go into the details of that as regards PR but it is a factor to bear well in mind. It would be interesting to know why the Government pulled back from allowing some experiments in PR in local government elections.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I looked at the list of amendments to see whether there was one on proportional representation; and I was not disappointed. I should have been surprised if the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches had not brought forward such an amendment.
	The Bill's scope is limited to the ideas of the working party on electoral procedures. The purpose of the Bill is to give life and effect to those ideas. The working party was clear that its recommendations related only to electoral procedures. It did not consider electoral systems. I venture to suggest that there would probably have been little scope for agreement across all the parties involved in the working party had that been part of its remit. I suspect that the noble Lord will acknowledge that.
	I do not dispute that the issue of voting systems is important. However, most people would argue that that matter should be dealt with in primary legislation which is fit for the purpose. That was the case with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament elections. I am grateful to the noble Lord for rehearsing the customary arguments. I understand the point about some of the abuses that the provision might check in some parts of local government where one party predominates exclusively for long periods of time. That is an important issue. Whether the amendment is necessarily the right way or the only way to deal with that issue is a broader political question.
	There will be continued debate in this field. We have not yet seen the end of discussion and debates about proportional representation as an important feature of constitutional developments in the UK. We shall await with considerable interest the outcome of the Greater London Authority elections which rest in part on a form of proportional representation. So there is a continuing debate. It is not the end of the story and no doubt we shall return to the matter time and again. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Lord McNally: I appreciate the Minister's constructive response. I make one point. For Liberal Democrats it is no longer a matter of pleading poverty. In many local authorities we are the beneficiaries of a distorting electoral system. It is not simply that we are a third party. In many local authorities we are now the first party and benefit considerably from the winner-takes-all nature of politics.
	However, the Minister responded in a constructive fashion, for which I thank him. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, remained silent, for which I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 12, line 4, at end insert--
	("( ) No more than one such new scheme, at any one time, shall be approved in a given electoral area.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment provides that, where experimentation takes place, no more than one experiment at a time should occur so that one can assess the result of one change without the distortion of other changes. I referred earlier to the Written Answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. Some local authorities propose two or three experiments. In some cases they are doing so ward by ward and that will probably meet my concern. However, in others the position is not entirely obvious. For example, the North Hertfordshire District Council would have Saturday voting, early voting and change to absent vote arrangements. If all three were allowed, and let us assume that there is an increase in the turn-out, these questions would then have to be asked. Was the position evenly balanced? Were all factors involved? Was only one factor involved and did not the others come into play?
	If we are to learn from these experiments we have to be careful that they are conducted in a scientific way. One would not conduct a scientific experiment by including a number of variables in the experiment, but with only one variable at a time.
	This is a probing amendment to see whether the Government have given some thought to the matter. If not, they should do so before deciding to agree on the experiments put forward to them by the local authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's comments. However, I invite the noble Lord to consider this point. He is right that a number of authorities have come up with multiple options for encouraging people to vote through the pilot schemes. My notes tell me that some 11 authorities seek to carry out more than one pilot. There are some 60 different schemes. Therefore we have the opportunity to see how they play in multiple schemes and in a single instance. So we have opportunities to understand how the multiple effect might affect turn-out; or the effect of a pilot scheme conducted in a discrete area. We can compare and contrast. That may well provide us with some clues as to the best way to encourage the electorate generally to participate in local democracy, or, at some future stage, in national elections. While I understand the noble Lord's concern, I believe that it is misplaced. What we are attempting to do here is to get the best out of having many flowers blooming at one instance and comparing that situation with isolated and discrete pilots. I trust that if the noble Lord takes on board those comments, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his response and I am pleased to hear that he appreciates my point. Although I understand what he is trying to say, I have my doubts about whether one could legitimately come to hard and fast conclusions if a number of variables had been introduced in the same area. One would then have to look to other areas where there was only one variable in order to appreciate the impact. I hope that the Government will not favour multiple variables over the whole field. When they agree these proposals, I hope that they will make sure that they have enough single variables so that they and we can come to a proper conclusion about the results of these different variables in the voting system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 not moved.]

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 12, line 15, leave out ("the authority concerned shall prepare a report on") and insert ("an independent assessment shall be made of").

Lord Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 107. We come now to consider what will happen once these pilot schemes have been tried out. A local authority will clearly wish to make a report. My amendment removes the duty to do so, but I do not believe that, in practice, any authority that has applied to carry out a pilot scheme would not wish to make a report. I do not see any point in saying that they must do it. If they do not want to do it, so be it.
	The key point is that, once a pilot scheme has been carried out, there must be an independent assessment of it. Those of us who have had experience of local government know that a report would have to be approved by a local council, and no doubt at the end of the day the content of that report by a local council would be biased in favour of what the majority party on that council wanted to see, for electoral reasons, coming out of the pilot. For that reason, a report by a local authority alone would be utterly inadequate in assessing the benefit of these pilot schemes. It is essential, therefore, that there should be an independent assessment of each pilot scheme, which can then be submitted.
	My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has tabled another amendment in relation to what should happen to a report by independent assessors, to which he will no doubt speak in a moment or two. However, the point that I wish to make as strongly as I can is that all these schemes must have independent assessments, which must start at the planning stage of the pilot scheme. The independent assessments must examine the conduct of the pilot scheme as it is carried out, monitor it, and then monitor the results at the end of the day. Simply to have a report by a local authority would be totally inadequate. We must have it done by an independent body.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Jopling has made a very valid point. He has mentioned my amendment, which is grouped with his. My amendment simply proposes that the Secretary of State should lay a copy of any report on any experiment before each of the Houses of Parliament together with a statement of his assessment of the experiment. Frankly, I am less worried about getting the Secretary of State's assessment. I am much more concerned with obtaining some form of independent assessment. I would like to see a local authority submitting its proposals for the assessment as well as its proposals for the experiment.
	I shall not take up too much time, but I draw the Minister's attention to a briefing that we have received from the Local Government Association on this Bill, in which, at paragraph 5, it states:
	"We understand some of the potential concerns around the roll out provision. For this reason, we have been keen to ensure that there is a proper independent evaluation of the pilots before a decision to roll them out is made".
	There is currently no provision for that. I doubt that I would accept an assessment from the local authority whose pilot it was, nor, dare I say with all due respect to the Home Office, from Home Office Ministers. Rather, I would want an assessment from some form of independent body. There are many universities that would, I have no doubt, be more than happy to conduct independent assessments of the various systems with which we shall be experimenting. It is therefore important that we should have some independent assessment before we ever consider rolling out any local experiment more widely to elections throughout the country.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have quite a lot of sympathy with the thought behind both of these amendments. However, I do not believe that at this stage either of them is necessary, and I shall now attempt to argue why that may be the case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is understandably anxious to ensure that pilot schemes are properly evaluated and has suggested that reports on the pilots should be prepared not by the local authorities that are running them but by independent assessors. As I understand it, he is concerned that a local authority may take too subjective a view of its experiment and may not produce a report which gives the Secretary of State enough information on which to take a view of the success or otherwise of the innovation which has been piloted.
	I do not, however, believe that this needs to be a real worry. Local authorities will carry out their evaluations in line with guidance issued by the Home Office, and that is very important indeed. If we have clear guidance in place, people will be able to understand exactly what we are seeking. There should not be too many problems, and we should therefore be satisfied with the way in which it will work.
	The reports will have to provide factual information on turn-out and they will have to consider the take up of particular measures and the cost. The reviews will also involve structured interviews; they will seek the views of voters and, as importantly, non-voters, electoral staff, candidates and parties on the effects of the change being piloted and sampled. I do not believe that there is a risk that a report of this sort will be unduly coloured by the subjective views of local authorities. After all, they will be compiled by professional officers, and there will be a limited scope, in a sense, for members to become directly involved, which might add that extra element of subjectivity, important though that can be in some of these piloting arrangements. The local authorities will be in the best position to collect and collate all the material that is required. There is no real reason why they should be required to buy in outside help if they do not wish to do so. The local authorities have a duty and an obligation to operate quite properly and correctly within the guidance that will be issued by the Home Office.
	I entirely understand the concerns of the Local Government Association. It is very enthusiastic for this legislation. It is very enthusiastic for pilot schemes, and I can understand why it may wish to bring in an independent element. In the future, of course, we shall only be able to roll out the pilots on a recommendation of the electoral commission, in legislation which comes later. That may well help us in this regard, and we can say more about that when we discuss Clause 11.
	I hope that what I have said about the form in which the assessments are to be made will offer the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, some reassurance. I also repeat the assurances that have been given by my colleagues in another place about the publication of the evaluation reports. All the reports--not only those on schemes which we consider have been a success--will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and will be made available, without restriction, to anyone who wishes to see them, either at local level or centrally. To that extent, the noble Lord's amendment will, of course, be superfluous.
	So, too, would be a further assessment by the Secretary of State. The evaluation reports produced by local authorities should provide all the information needed to reach a view on the success or otherwise of the various pilots. There is no need for the Secretary of State to put a further gloss on the material. Indeed, I do not believe that that would be right or desirable.
	I hope that with those reassurances, my comments about the electoral commission and the way in which we would expect professional officers within the local authority to operate, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Jopling: I am most disappointed with the Minister's reply. It is not realistic. It is all very well saying that we can rely on the officers of local authorities to make proper and correct reports, but those reports will be produced by members of the council, who are biased. In almost all cases throughout the country, they are members of political parties and they will look upon the pilot schemes with half an eye to their political advantage. I believe that the Minister has been complacent in his reply.
	It is a matter to which we must return at a later stage and I hope that the Minister will consider more carefully the problems to which the reports could give rise. It is a pity that he has not been able to be more specific about the electoral commission. The Local Government Association has proposed that there should be three reports: one from the local authority; one by an independent assessment; and one from the electoral commission. I am not sure that we need as many as that, but if the Minister could undertake to ensure that the legislation dealing with the creation of the electoral commission will include a duty to provide independent assessments of the pilot schemes, that would go a long way to satisfying us.
	I am most dissatisfied, but I shall listen to what the Minister is about to say.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps my answer was not clear. In future, we shall be able to roll out pilots only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. Therefore, it will have a distinct role in engaging and assessing the way in which pilot schemes have operated and their future prospects. I should have thought that that would satisfy most of the noble Lord's points.
	I have considerable sympathy with the points which he and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, accurately said, many academic institutions have great expertise in making such assessments, having been involved in best-value pilot assessments and so forth. We understand the points, but we believe that we should try to make best use of the electoral commission when it is in place. It will have an important role to play in this respect.

Lord Jopling: I hope that the Minister's sympathy can be turned into something solid at Report stage. We must raise this matter again because it is vitally important. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 13, line 13, leave out ("relevant elections of any description") and insert ("local government elections in England and Wales").

Lord Goodhart: This is the last of what I see to be the three crucial amendments to the Bill. The first related to the free mailshots for the London elections; the second related to the right of access to the full electoral register for commercial organisations; this is the third and, in constitutional terms, it is the most important. It raised considerable concern on these and the Conservative Benches at Second Reading.
	The issue of when, how and where we vote is extremely important. Previously, in its central principles, it was always dealt with by primary legislation. The schedules to the Representation of the People Act 1983 contain detailed rules about voting which in any other field would be left to secondary legislation. The rules set out in the schedules extend even to prescribing the equipment which must be present in polling stations. The constitutional importance of rules about voting was illustrated by the fact that when this Bill was debated in the other place, the whole of the Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House.
	Clause 10, which we have just debated, allows pilot schemes to be tried out in local government elections. There is no parliamentary control on the Secretary of State's approval of particular pilots. We did not object to that because it is right that the Secretary of State should have a reasonably free hand in deciding what is to be dealt with in pilot schemes in a small number of locations. However, Clause 11 allows pilot schemes to be made permanent and applied across the board not only for local government elections--the only kind of elections in which they have been tested--but for elections to Westminster, the EU Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	We believe that long-term alterations to the voting system should have full parliamentary approval through primary legislation. That applies not only to the franchise and voting system, but also to the mechanics of voting. Secondary legislation is not enough. That is particularly true, even if it is the affirmative resolution procedure, in view of the proposals in the Wakeham report to restrict the powers of your Lordships' House to block statutory instruments.
	The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended that the powers under Clause 11 should be restricted to local government elections; and that the read-out from the pilot schemes could be applied without primary legislation in local government elections, but in other cases could be applied only with primary legislation.
	The amendments in the group are intended to achieve that. They would leave the Government free to introduce under Clause 11 secondary legislation to roll over the pilot schemes into permanent form, but primary legislation would be required for elections to the other place and to the other bodies which I mentioned.
	Even in respect of local government, the reports from the local authorities operating the pilot schemes are not an adequate basis for a Clause 11 order. In that, I echo the points made on the previous group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Therefore, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee proposed a further safeguard that consultation with the electoral commission should take place before the Secretary of State could make an order even in relation to local government.
	I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that in future there will be consultation with the electoral commission. I can quite see why that cannot be put into this Bill because the electoral commission is to be set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill which is further back in the queue of waiting legislation. But it is plain that the electoral commission should be consulted about all these regulations under Clause 11. That would require an amendment to Clause 6 of what I call for short the political parties Bill, under which, for example, the electoral commission is required to be consulted about the making of any regulations under the Representation of the People Act 1983 for which the affirmative resolution procedure is required. Regulations made under this Bill should also be added to that list.
	In summary, we say that Clause 11 should not apply to any elections except local government elections in England and Wales, and should only apply to them after consultation with the electoral commission. I have said that I recognise that that cannot be dealt with in this Bill because the electoral commission is to be set up by a future Bill. But I hope that the Government will not use their powers under Clause 11, even as regards local government, until the electoral commission has been set up and is ready to advise. I ask the Government to undertake to amend Clause 6 of the political parties Bill and not to exercise their powers under Clause 11 before Clause 6 of the political parties Bill is in force.
	I recognise that in practice that means that Clause 11 cannot be exercised in time for the local elections in the year 2001 because the electoral commission not only has to be set up by statute but also has to recruit staff and have members appointed. It will take some time before it can come into operation. Therefore, in practice, I believe that the electoral commission cannot operate until the year 2002. I believe that that is acceptable and even desirable. These are extremely important issues. There is no need for great urgency. I believe it essential that the electoral commission is involved in the process and that Clause 11 powers should not be exercised until the electoral commission is in a position to play its part. Having said that, I re-emphasise that this applies only to local government elections. We believe that Clause 11 powers should not be used at all other than as regards local government. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 110 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 111. Likewise, in this group of amendments, if Amendment No. 115 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 116 or 117.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support Amendments Nos. 109, 112 and 115. I shall not take much of the Committee's time. I wholly agree that there should be full parliamentary approval of primary legislation as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. At Second Reading I took the stand that Clause 11 could not stand part of the Bill, as drafted--I remain of that opinion--in the sense that it was applicable to all types of elections referred to in Clause 11(7). But if Clause 11 is amended to relate exclusively to revision in the light of pilot schemes limited only to local government elections, well and good. As I understand it, that is broadly the effect of these amendments. That is why I support them. If these or similar amendments to such effect are not acceptable to the Government, then in my view this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: On reaching Clause 11, I read it two or three times. I could hardly believe that the Government were bringing forward such a proposal. It seemed amazing to me then, and still does, that on the basis of local government elections in certain parts of England and Wales, and experiments conducted in those elections, the Secretary of State should seek the power by order, even an affirmative order, to roll out these experiments not just over the whole of England and Wales, but also for parliamentary elections, European Parliament elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local government elections in Northern Ireland.
	I am not entirely sure what has happened to poor old Scotland as regards local government but it seems unbelievable that, on the basis of experiments conducted only in England and Wales, there should be a roll out in Northern Ireland local elections and in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the Scottish parliamentary elections besides the European parliamentary elections.
	On studying the clause further I thought that it might be arguable--I still use those words--that the affirmative order would be sufficient for rolling out over the whole of England and Wales the experiments conducted in local government in England and Wales; in other words, in respect of elections of a similar kind in the same part of the country. I therefore tabled my raft of amendments which would achieve pretty much the same as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. So we are absolutely at one on the issue. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, believes that it would be fine and satisfactory if the roll out were only to local government elections and by affirmative order. I have to be persuaded about that; I believe that I could be. However, I certainly cannot be persuaded that they should be rolled out to parliamentary elections.
	That leads me to the position that one either amends the clause along the lines of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or those that I have proposed, or a mixture of both. Alternatively, one takes the advice of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and votes against the whole clause and removes it from the Bill. I shall be interested what the Minister has to say.
	I then thought to myself that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee would not like that. Indeed, it did not. I am not surprised. Some Members of the Committee may know that I was one of the founder members of that committee, now the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which probably explains why I missed out the word "Deregulation" in first mentioning it. We started off by looking at secondary legislation in a very serious way, considering whether it was right to do something by that method or by the affirmative or negative procedures.
	Shortly after the committee was established, I was asked to join the government and became the recipient of some vigorous comments from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I believe I am right in saying that I took all the criticisms on board. I believe I am also right in saying that the last government, of which I was a member, took all the criticisms of that committee on board and attempted to accommodate them. It is fair to say the present Government have done the same. I therefore say to the Minister that we expect the Government on this issue to take the opinions of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to heart and make the necessary changes.
	It is only fair that I should conclude by simply reading out what the committee said in order to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. When referring to such powers, it states in paragraph 25 of the fourth report of 9th February:
	"Such a power would be unacceptable to this committee.
	The issue of where, when and how people vote is a matter of great importance. The House may wish to consider amending the bill to limit the power so that it extends only to elections in the category in which the pilot was conducted and covered by the report, namely local government".
	I do not need to add anything to that statement, except to say that if the Government do not take cognizance of what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has said here they will face a difficult debate once we examine the Bill on Report.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a useful debate on this clause and I note all the important and interesting contributions that have been made. I acknowledge also the strong feelings which some noble Lords have expressed. Equally, I, too, have read carefully the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, to which several noble Lords have referred.
	The Government do not dismiss such views lightly and I would therefore like to explain to noble Lords why the Government believe that Clause 11, in its present form, should remain part of the Bill. As noble Lords are aware, Clause 10 of the Bill allows local authorities to apply to run pilot schemes at particular local elections. All such pilot schemes will need to be fully evaluated and, as I said earlier, a copy of the evaluation report must be sent to the Secretary of State within three months of the election concerned. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that has already been given that all such evaluation reports will be published. We shall certainly place copies in the Libraries of both Houses, so this will be a fully open and transparent process.
	I ask noble Lords to consider what would happen if a particular innovation is a great success. Perhaps it has been tried in several local authorities of different demographic compositions and in each case turn-out has increased and the evaluation has shown that the electorates concerned welcomed the innovation. In such cases, we would want to apply the change more widely as quickly as possible. After all, speed is of the essence.
	This is not only a theoretical argument. As many noble Lords will know, some 20 local authorities--both metropolitan and district councils--have applied to run early voting trials at the local elections in May of this year. The schemes have been well thought out and planned and, of course, will be fully evaluated. All told, several million voters will be given the opportunity to vote early. I contend that this is a large enough sample on which to make a judgment as to whether early voting does indeed make it easier for people to vote and, perhaps more important, whether it encourages people who would not otherwise have voted to do so.
	If this clause were to be removed from the Bill, we could not introduce early voting or any other innovations that have been successfully piloted, except by introducing further primary legislation. Noble Lords know very well that demand for legislative slots always exceeds the amount of parliamentary time available. Who knows when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary might be able to secure a slot for the necessary legislation? I dare say that those who had already tried out the successful innovations would find it difficult to understand why they would have to wait for them to be available at other elections.
	It is our hope that we shall have a steady stream of pilots over the next few years. It is quite possible that, each year, one or more successful innovations will emerge. However, the chances of securing several legislative slots in the next few years to apply such successful innovations more widely seems remote, to put it mildly. Instead, we have provided that any innovations which are shown to be a success can be rolled out more generally by order. Such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures in both Houses, so Parliament will have ample opportunity to express its view, and, as I have already said, the evidence on which to form a judgment will be freely available.
	Several of these amendments suggest that, because pilot schemes have been tried out in local elections, it should be possible only to roll them out to local elections; and indeed the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has suggested something along similar lines. However, I cannot see the logic of this. If a particular innovation is a success and if it is popular with the public, why should its use be restricted only to certain types of election?
	There would also be practical problems with this approach. In many areas, local elections take place much more frequently than any other kind of election, so the electorate would get used to being able to vote early, electronically, or over several days, using whatever method had been chosen. Imagine the confusion among electors if, when the general election came, they suddenly found that they could only vote in the traditional way. Many might well be caught unawares and might find themselves unable to vote at all.
	It gets worse. Imagine that various innovations have been rolled out to local elections and so applied--perhaps, for example, to Brighton and Hove, a council close to my heart. However, imagine that it so happened that on the same day a by-election was scheduled to take place in one of the Brighton parliamentary constituencies. The effect of that could be that electors in one half of Brighton and Hove would be able to vote using the new, improved and innovative electoral procedures, while voters in the other half would not. That strikes me as being a recipe for confusion. For those reasons, we do not believe that a partial roll-out option is a sensible one.
	The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee also suggested that the electoral commission should have a role in determining whether pilot schemes should be rolled out. I can assure noble Lords that that is the intention of the Government. As I have explained in responding to previous amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, we do not believe that we can refer to the electoral commission in this Bill since that body does not yet exist; the Bill before us is the earlier of the two Bills.
	However, I can assure noble Lords that we shall be bringing forward an amendment to the other electoral Bill--the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill--to provide that the Secretary of State will only be able to make an order under Clause 11(1) of that Bill--rolling out a pilot scheme--on the recommendation of the electoral commission. That is quite unambiguous; a roll out will be able to take place only if the electoral commission has recommended it.
	Finally, I should point out that the notion of pilot schemes originated with the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. It is worth quoting from paragraph 3.1.14 of the working party's final report in which it states:
	"Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out widely without the need for further primary legislation".
	We have followed that recommendation in framing this Bill. No member of the working party, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat representatives, dissented from the recommendation. The working party recognised--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps the Minister should refer to Recommendation 28 of the working party's report, which makes no suggestion in support of the case for extending this beyond local government elections. The Minister has referred to one part of the working party's report, but perhaps he should refer to paragraph 18 or 28--I regret that I cannot quite remember which; at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish referred to paragraph 18.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Whether it is paragraph 17 or 18, the Government have framed their view around paragraph 3.1.14. When I referred to it during the debate on Second Reading, I thought that the reference was quite unambiguous.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said, I referred to this at Second Reading. I am referring to the final report of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. Reading the paragraph concerning the rolling out of pilot schemes, there is nothing that leads one to believe that such rolling out of pilot schemes should be applied to all elections. On reading the paragraph again, no forms of election are mentioned other than local elections. It refers to,
	"arrangements in pilot schemes in local elections",
	and over the page it refers to rolling out more widely.
	While I accept that the noble Lord might be able to argue that that means that such schemes should be rolled out to all kinds of elections, it is equally arguable that it means rolling out more widely across local government elections in England and Wales. I regret that, as regards the final report of the working party, there is not much comfort for the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to rely on the paragraph from which I have quoted. I, too, have been studying the paragraphs; I think that our position is unambiguous and I believe that the position of the working party was unambiguous. As I have already said, no member of the working party dissented from the conclusion, which represented views from across the political spectrum. Indeed, the working party recognised the difficulty--I believe that this is an important point--of finding parliamentary time for electoral procedures legislation. I hope that the Opposition parties will recognise the importance of modernising electoral procedures.

Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I have listened with great care to his arguments for not following the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I believe that the noble Lord was not a Member of this House before the last general election when, as Leader, sometimes against the strong inclination of my government colleagues, I always tried to ensure that the recommendations of that committee were followed by government. Indeed, I am sure that noble Lords opposite who were Members of this House at that time will remember that the then opposition were absolutely adamant that that was the right thing to do.
	Does the noble Lord agree that, so long as the convention remains in place, this House does not vote against secondary legislation? So long as the government of the day retain a substantial working majority in another place, it is very difficult to argue that an order-making power, whether by negative or affirmative procedure, can be anything except a transfer of power to the government provided that it is not possible for what is being approved to be approved through primary rather than secondary legislation. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument that it is adequate to give this House and another place the opportunity to look at these important matters, which are the absolute grist to our method of government, and that they should not be given the opportunity for primary legislation in fact constitutes a great transfer of power to the government of the day over our basic electoral procedures.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Viscount makes a clever point. Of course, I would hope that the convention about secondary legislation and order-making powers would hold. However, no doubt that is something for the future. I believe that it is fair to say that, of course, it would be preferable if matters such as this--ideas for improving and modernising the electoral procedures--were to be approved by primary legislation. However, I believe that the argument which we are putting forward in this case is about flexibility. I would argue that this is an exceptional case. I believe that the process of scrutiny--rigorous as it is in both Houses but particularly rigorous here--is very important.
	I apologise for speaking at such length on this matter. However, I recognise, as, clearly, do all Members of the Committee, that this is a most important matter. As I have already said, the scheme in this Bill will provide both Houses of Parliament with a full opportunity to debate the merits of any proposal to roll out an innovative electoral procedure. A recommendation from the electoral commission will be required. I believe that those are strong and important safeguards which we should develop and on which we should rely. Therefore, I hope--

Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again. If it is true that he would like this convention to continue to be observed and if it is true that the government of the day have a working majority in another place, how can the affirmative procedure be a safeguard?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a matter of tradition and history here. I am sure that the noble Viscount will be the first to agree that throughout 18 years of government by his own party it was proven to be a very effective safeguard. I have no doubt that he would argue that case. I believe that we must rely on the process of scrutiny to see us through such issues. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree to the inclusion of Clause 11 because of the beneficial impact that the pilot procedures will have on extending and modernising our democracy. Because of those very important reasons, I believe that the Committee should support the inclusion of Clause 11 in its present form in the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, winds up and decides what he should do with his amendments, perhaps I may intervene briefly in response to what I believe was an extremely disappointing speech from the Minister. He seemed to believe that we should be satisfied by his promises about the commission. In fact, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee asked for that as well as primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully what he has done. I believe that he will go into the record books as the first Minister who refused resolutely to take on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Equally, if the pilots were a great success and if all the political parties agreed, there would be no great trouble in getting a piece of primary legislation through both Houses of Parliament. The Government have plenty--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did make the point that we had already accepted one of the proposals from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That was in relation to an important consideration: the position of the electoral commission. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, I have accepted it and I believed that I had made that clear. I welcome that part but, frankly, it was not an either/or issue. It did not say that either one has primary legislation or one asks the electoral commission to deal with it. I am profoundly disappointed in the Minister's reply. I am profoundly disappointed in the attitude of the Government. If they will not listen to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, perhaps they should simply come forward with an amendment to wind it up. It is there to advise this House--and that means advising the Government. In this case, the Government seem to ignore that advice. I am not sure that the House will ignore that advice.

Lord Goodhart: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I, too, found his response seriously unsatisfactory. I believe that the point which hit me was when he said that speed is of the essence. It is absolutely plain that when it comes to important and long-lasting constitutional reform, speed is not of the essence. It is important to give all these issues full and proper consideration. On any basis, I believe that it would be inappropriate to make permanent changes in the methods of voting simply on the basis of one-year trials in a few local authorities. We would need much more prolonged trials than that and in a properly selected number of different parts of the country.
	We should also ensure that, before any change is made, there is an opportunity to seek the advice of the electoral commission. I certainly welcome the noble Lord's statement that the political parties Bill will be amended to provide that a roll-out can take place only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. Of course, that can happen only after the electoral commission has been set up. My understanding was--the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong--that the Government were not proposing any kind of self-denying ordinance to say that they would not introduce roll-outs of any sort before the electoral commission has been set up. If they are not willing to give that undertaking, the position is that, within the next year or so before the electoral commission is up and running, the Government could, by secondary legislation, change the electoral system, not only for local government but for the next general election, which many people believe is now quite likely to take place on the same day as the local elections in 2001.
	Finally and above all, the Minister will have heard the very strong support that he has been given, both from this party and from the Conservatives, with regard to the essential importance of reserving primary legislation for changes to any form of election other than local government elections. That being the case, I do not believe that this is the appropriate occasion on which to seek to divide the Committee. However, the Minister must be quite sure that we shall return to this matter on Report and that this is a very serious and important amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 110 to 117 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

North Wales Child Abuse Report

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before I begin, I should like to place on record that I was a member of the Association of County Councils from 1981 until 1996 and that I chaired the association in 1995.
	With the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd since 1974. Copies of the tribunal's report are available from the Vote Office.
	"The report includes the testimony of many people who made allegations of physical and sexual abuse and gives an insight into the appalling suffering they endured as children. It is a tragedy that such treatment should have been meted out to children in care.
	"The background to the inquiry is complex. Allegations about poor treatment of children in North Wales first emerged in 1986. One result was an intensive investigation by the North Wales Police in 1991 which resulted in a number of convictions. However, speculation continued that the actual physical and sexual abuse of children in care in the former Clwyd and Gwynedd was on a much greater scale. When in 1996, on legal advice, Clwyd County Council did not publish a report that it had commissioned, there was increasing concern in North Wales and in this House, and renewed speculation in the media, leading to calls for a public inquiry.
	"The then Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable Member for Richmond, informed the House on 17th June 1996 that there would be a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Given what has emerged, I think the House will applaud his decision. Sir Ronald Waterhouse was appointed as chairman, with Margaret Clough and Morris le Fleming as the other members.
	"The tribunal sat for 201 days between January 1997 and April 1998. Two hundred and sixty-four witnesses gave oral evidence and 311 submitted written evidence. The work of the tribunal was difficult and harrowing. I place on the record our gratitude to the tribunal for the work it has done and deep admiration for the courage of the many complainants who were willing to relive their childhood experiences.
	"The report records the testimony of the witnesses in detail and with great sensitivity. Recounting past events will have been distressing to some. I have made arrangements for the services of the Bridge Child Care Development Service, which provided a witness support team throughout the proceedings, to be available again from today to witnesses and their relatives or partners for a period of up to six months.
	"In its report the tribunal has named many people: alleged abusers, convicted abusers, local government officers, elected members and Welsh Office officials. It has not named complainants or some alleged abusers. The tribunal set out its policy on the naming of names and did so in the knowledge that its report would have the absolute privilege afforded by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
	"The tribunal has also confronted the serious questions which arise about the management and safeguarding of children in care. There are 95 conclusions. Those relating to the abuse of children are: that there was widespread sexual abuse of boys and, to a lesser extent, of girls in local authority and privately run children's residential establishments and schools and in an NHS psychiatric unit, in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990; that there was no evidence of persistent sexual abuse in children's residential establishments in Gwynedd; that many children in children's residential homes were subjected to physical abuse; that sexual and physical abuse also occurred in a small number of foster homes in Gwynedd; that,
	'There was no evidence presented to the Tribunal or to the North Wales Police to establish that there was a wide ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care'.
	"However, the tribunal also says that,
	'During the period under review there was a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the sense that there were a number of male persons, many of them known to each other, who were engaged in paedophile activities and were targeting young men in their middle teens. The evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care, but such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches'.
	"On the role of the police, the local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government, the tribunal concludes broadly: that with few exceptions, the police carried out investigations properly; that standards of care and of education in children's residential establishments were deficient, and that failures in the care system were widespread and at all levels--including local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government, embracing staff recruitment, supervision and management; qualifications and training; complaints and investigation procedures; registration and inspection; and policy making, implementation and monitoring by local authorities and government.
	"There are 72 recommendations. On the detection of, and response to, abuse, the tribunal recommends that an independent children's commissioner for Wales should be appointed and that every social services authority, not only in Wales, should be required to appoint an appropriately qualified or experienced children's complaints officer.
	"There are recommendations on advocacy services; complaints procedures and whistleblowers; on assessment and care planning; on inter-agency working when abuse is suspected; on the recruitment and training of staff and foster carers; on inspections and regulation of private residential schools and all forms of children's residential care; on common standards of care; and on support for young people leaving care.
	"The tribunal makes recommendations on the expertise required in social services management; on the responsibilities of local authority members for monitoring services to children; on the need for a wide-ranging review of children's services in Wales; on monitoring residential and fostering services across Wales; and on the appointment of an advisory council for children's services in Wales.
	"Many of the recommendations are specific to Wales and the National Assembly will receive the report today for the first time.
	"Many of the recommendations have wider implications. We have already put significant new work in hand to secure real improvements in the standards of care we expect for children living away from home. As the tribunal recognises, there have been many far-reaching changes over the past decade, in particular flowing from the changed perceptions introduced by the Children Act 1989.
	"More recently we have taken a number of important steps to raise the quality of care for children, in response to People Like Us, the report by Sir William Utting on the review of safeguards for children living away from home which was commissioned at the same time as the inquiry.
	"The Protection of Children Act 1999 will create a statutory register of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children. Regulated childcare providers will be required to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against the statutory lists kept by the Department of Health and the DfEE.
	"The Care Standards Bill will introduce improved arrangements in England and Wales for the independent regulation and inspection of local authority, voluntary and private sector services on an even-handed basis. Those will cover inspection of all children's homes, including those with fewer than four children; fostering agencies; voluntary adoption agencies; residential family centres and welfare arrangements in boarding schools.
	"The Bill will also establish new care councils for England and Wales which will set out enforceable codes of conduct and practice for all social care employees. They will set standards and regulate the workforce, helping to ensure that staff get the training and qualifications they need.
	"The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will put in place extensive new support arrangements to ensure that young people over 16 leaving care will continue to be supported until they are ready and able to stand on their own. There will be a duty placed on local authorities to assess and meet needs and to keep in touch with care leavers. Our plans for more general youth support, through the Connexions programme just launched in England, and a broadly similar scheme for Wales, will offer children in care, and others, a range of support in education, careers, housing and personal relationship issues.
	"The Government have launched major new programmes, Children First in Wales, and Quality Protects in England, to improve the management and delivery of children's social services, including a distinct role for local councillors.
	"Revised guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, the revised Working Together, was issued in England in December 1999 and will be issued in Wales in March.
	"The tribunal's report adds impetus to this programme for change, but also makes significant new recommendations. We shall be looking hard at these to see how they complement changes we are planning or are already implementing, or whether a change of direction of emphasis is needed. At the top of the list is the tribunal's call for the appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales. The National Assembly is already working up detailed proposals for such an appointment, and we shall be considering how best to take this forward.
	"Our key concern now must be to satisfy ourselves, so far as we can, that people who abused children are not in a position to do so now.
	"Those individuals named in the report who are still working in one of the successor local authorities in North Wales have been traced and risk-assessed. However, given the time-span covered by the report, there are a number of individuals against whom findings are made in the report who are no longer working for one of the successor local authorities and whose current whereabouts are unknown. We are working together to establish the current whereabouts of these individuals and to ensure that they do not currently pose a risk to children or to other vulnerable groups.
	"In order to achieve that, the Government are taking additional immediate action. We are today extending the consultancy index to permit the inclusion of names in the list otherwise than following a referral by an employer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce today that a number of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children or against whom the tribunal has made a finding of having harmed children, or of being unsuitable to work with children, are to be included on the extended index on a temporary basis with immediate effect. This is an interim measure pending representations by those individuals which will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before deciding whether they should be included on the extended index on a permanent basis.
	"We are taking immediate steps to establish the current whereabouts of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children, or against whom findings of having harmed children or of being unsuitable to work with children, have been made by the tribunal but whose current whereabouts are unknown. The Department of Health and the National Assembly have today written to all chief executives of health authorities and local authorities in England and Wales asking them to check their employment records immediately to verify whether such individuals whose whereabouts are unknown are currently working with children or other vulnerable groups within their authorities. If such individuals are found to be working with any authority, that authority will be required to inform the Department of Health in England or the National Assembly of this fact and of the action which the authority proposes to take.
	"The report is being sent to all local authorities, police authorities, health authorities and NHS Trusts; to voluntary sector bodies, area child protection committees and other bodies which have a key role to play in the protection of children. That will enable checks to be made where appropriate. To ensure that the messages in the report are widely read, greater numbers of a summary report are also being issued.
	"The programme of action we have already put in train is a demanding one for all levels of government. We are determined to see it through and to use this report as a warning of the constant need for vigilance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will be directing the Government's work to drive through this programme with advice from the ministerial task group on children's safeguards, which includes local government, voluntary sector and young people themselves.
	"Sir Ronald's report catalogues deeds of appalling mistreatment and wickedness; of sexual, physical and emotional abuse; and of the total abuse of trust. To those whose lives have been shattered, to the families of those who have died and to all decent-thinking people, of course we all say "sorry". But sorry is not enough and we are determined that this report will lead to a society where young people can be cared for in safety and where they can truly enjoy their childhood just as most of us in this House were able to do".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this sad Statement which will clearly have repercussions far beyond North Wales. I join the Minister in thanking Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC for undertaking the mammoth task of conducting the 16-month inquiry spanning the period from 1974 to the mid-90s, and in complimenting him on the thoroughness of his report. It is a veritable compendium. The summary alone consists of 227 pages.
	I also express our profoundest sympathy to the victims of abuse. Some of the abusers have already been convicted and punished for their wrongdoing. Others are being pursued so that they will never again be employed in childcare.
	Does the Minister agree that the report clearly and amply justifies the decision of my right honourable friend William Hague when he was Secretary of State for Wales to set up a full-scale inquiry and bring all the allegations into the open so that their validity could be properly assessed and tested? All the local authorities concerned, including the Welsh Office, where I was a Minister for much of the time, were closely examined.
	The substantial report covers a long time-span, administrations of both major parties, and different local government arrangements. Can the Secretary of State confirm that throughout the period--indeed, ever since the Children Act 1948--the main duties and responsibilities relating to public childcare were vested in the local authorities and that they were responsible for allocating adequate staffing and resources for that purpose?
	Can the Minister also confirm that the powers of the office of the Secretary of State throughout the period were largely powers of supervision, refined in the Children Act 1989 as being to provide a statutory and regulatory framework for the local authorities to exercise their responsibilities? Does she agree that the reformulation of the duty in that Act as being to safeguard and promote the welfare of children was a major step forward, as acknowledged in the report?
	Does the Minister agree that while the report deals largely with the past and may result in further legal proceedings, its greatest value lies in its provision of a basis of knowledge and experience upon which central and local government can avoid the mistakes of the past and plan a better framework for the care of children in future?
	While I fully appreciate, like all noble Lords, the value of the actions taken by the Government in the Care Standards Bill and in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and the report's recommendations that there should be a children's commissioner with an advisory committee and a complaints officer in each social service department, perhaps I may suggest that these safeguards will only be as effective as the individuals who occupy the posts that will be established. Every effort should be made to secure staff of the highest quality and integrity.
	Child abuse has not been confined to North Wales. This report, devastating as it may be to those who have some responsibility for the childcare system in Wales, is to be welcomed as a very revealing and instructive report, which will be studied both far and wide.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the assistance that the department has given us today. I should also like to congratulate Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his inquiry team on producing a painstaking and rigorous analysis of a huge body of evidence, which has faced up squarely to all the issues that have been disturbing the public, especially in my home town of Wrexham and in North Wales, for a long time. Sir Ronald has produced comprehensive findings and recommendations. This report is the reverse of a whitewash: he has faced and enunciated unpalatable truths with clarity.
	Perhaps I may also declare something of an interest. As I said, Wrexham is my home town and it would be surprising if I did not know anyone who was named in the report. I have personal knowledge of the five individual care assistants from Bryn Estyn, who were known as the "rugby set". Indeed, I gave advice initially to one of them who was subsequently prosecuted and acquitted, although I did not act in the case. As for the others, they were not charged and are not seriously criticised in the report.
	If only to dismiss the public fear in my part of Wales that matters were hushed up by reason of some dire conspiracy among those in authority--whether in the North Wales Police or in local authorities--to prevent investigation of paedophile offences, perhaps I may articulate that this inquiry report categorically finds that there was no evidence of the existence of a wide-ranging ring of prominent persons targeted at care centres. It also totally acquits the North Wales Police of failing in its duty to investigate complaints. Indeed, the investigation of 1991-93 is described as being "thorough" and states that the North Wales Police showed every willingness to prosecute, as many of the offenders were prosecuted.
	It seems to me that there are three outstanding features of this report. First, there is the lack of adequate structures and strategies for the inspection and supervision of care establishments. Criticism is made in the report of both the Welsh Office and the existing county councils at that time. Although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the Welsh Office, the report specifically found that it did not take any initiative of its own that was relevant to the possible occurrence generally of child abuse in either children's residential homes or foster homes. It also says that the office's response generally to information available by the end of 1986 was "lethargic", despite the gravity of the risk. Those are severe criticisms and, as I said, the report faces up to them. The county councils also receive their share of blame.
	Secondly, the report reveals the casual way in which care staff were recruited to these establishments. One of the people to whom I have already referred was taken on as a care assistant at the age of 21, without any training or background whatever. He was left to fend for himself in an establishment which, according to the report, had this culture of violence and sexual abuse within it. That casual recruitment must never be repeated.
	Thirdly, there was the culture of silence in which all those who were in authority were complicit. Another of the people to whom I referred, Robert Jones, whom I know well, complained to the headmaster after witnessing one episode of physical abuse. However, his complaints were not heeded. He then wrote to the social services department of the county council and received a letter in response saying that it was taking no action about the matter. If that is the sort of response that the staff were getting when they endeavoured to make complaints, one can well understand why it was that no hint of these problems within such establishments in the county of Clwyd, where I live, ever came to public attention. Instead of these matters percolating through to people in authority who could do something about it, it is terrible to note that complaints--even those from staff--were stifled rather than acted upon.
	Looking to the future, I greatly welcome the introduction of a Care Standards Bill, which will set up care councils, and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, in repeating the Statement, the noble Baroness emphasised the importance of tracing those who are named in the report. That is of vital importance. When they are traced a risk assessment is to be carried out, but the report is not clear as to who will be responsible for that task. Can the Minister say who will carry out such an assessment?
	My second question relates to compensation. I know that the Government frequently say how concerned they are about the victims of crime. Therefore, I should be grateful to know what arrangements have been made for the proper compensation of those who have suffered under these terrible regimes. Further, is that simply to be confined to the restrictive tariffs of the provisions that apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
	Thirdly, I welcome the proposed appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales and the recommendation that there should be child complaints officers in every local authority. But can the Minister say when this will happen? I note that the National Assembly will quickly be charged with the duty to appoint such a person, but can the noble Baroness assist by telling us when this will take place and what sort of guidelines will be given to the very important position of children's commissioner?
	Noble Lords will appreciate how difficult it is for someone from this community to have to face up to a report of this nature. But I am grateful to Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who, indeed, comes from the same community, for the tremendous task that he has undertaken.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Of course, I fully echo the sentiments that they have expressed about the work of Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his fellow members of the tribunal; and, indeed, of all those involved. They undertook a mammoth task in order to produce this very comprehensive report.
	Perhaps I may begin by referring to the situation with regard to a children's commissioner for Wales. There is all-party support for this and the Assembly is working to develop the scope and remit for such a post. The Government will consider an appropriate legislative vehicle when the Assembly brings forward its proposals. A children's commissioner could have a wider role in children's matters than that contained in the Care Standards Bill. There is also scope for the Assembly to establish a children's rights director within the care standards directorate in Wales.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the issue of compensation for victims. I understand that a large number of civil claims have been lodged against the local authorities and others responsible for establishments in which abuse took place. Some claims have been settled out of court. I prefer to write to the noble Lord on the subject of the tariff that would apply in those circumstances.
	Both the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, have rightly drawn attention to the need to ensure that children will be dealt with properly in future. We have made significant improvements in safeguards by improving the vetting of all childcare staff; by putting the consultancy index on to a stronger and more comprehensive basis; by supporting advocacy schemes so that children's voices are heard; by improving support for training for foster carers; by better training for childcare social workers; and by preparing revised guidance on interagency working. However, we can never be 100 per cent sure on this matter. Paedophiles who are determined to abuse children can be devious and skilful in evading detection. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified the fact that people who live in a community may be highly respected and yet--to the shock and dismay of other members of the community--may, after many years, be found to have abused the trust placed in them.
	I was also asked about risk assessment. For those in employment, the risk assessment must be carried out by the employer. The Government have set a strict timetable against which this must be done. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was absolutely right to say that his right honourable friend Mr Hague was fully justified in setting up the inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, also asked why this happened and who was to blame. The report outlines serious and systematic failures in the care of children. The primary blame lies with the abusers who are individually responsible for their actions. However, the report also reveals failures on the part of the Welsh Office and local authorities. The Welsh Office failed to provide leadership and guidance to ensure that the provision and administration of social services were given appropriate priority, and failed to inform itself adequately of what was happening to those services in relation to North Wales. The social services departments failed to provide effective and positive leadership at the most senior level and some managers failed to act on allegations of abuse. Children and some staff were not listened to.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that this is not, sadly, a problem that has occurred only in one area. I refer to the problem of child abuse in residential settings. Between January 1998 and January 1999, 32 police forces in England and Wales investigated allegations of institutional child abuse. Realistically, we are unlikely to eradicate child abuse altogether. Much has happened since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 to create a safer environment. Sir William Utting's key recommendations are being implemented. The Protection of Children Act, which is to come into effect later this year, will require regulated childcare organisations to undertake comprehensive vetting procedures on applicants who work with children.
	I have tried to answer the points raised by noble Lords. If I have failed to answer any point in detail, I shall, of course, write.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, those of us who live in North Wales must be deeply affected by these appalling events. We are also grateful to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and to his colleagues for the report.
	I do not propose to make a speech as I have not yet had the opportunity to read the report. However, I am impressed with the comments of my noble friend. The Government have taken helpful action. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the House what action they are taking immediately to try to resolve some of the problems. We are grateful to my noble friend for her comments today. However, we shall want a full debate on this matter in due course when we know what the Government have achieved in this area.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn that time will need to be allocated to consider the report in full. However, we shall waste no time in looking at the detail. Many of the conclusions are directed at Wales and at the National Assembly for Wales, which received the report only this afternoon and will decide how best to take it forward. However, the most immediate action that needs to be taken is to ensure that every means available is used to trace those who may still be working with children and who need to be prevented from doing so.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, although the report is largely a matter for the Welsh Assembly as it was commissioned within Wales, nevertheless its implications are great and the subject is of importance to everyone. Will the Minister bring all her influence to bear on the Leader of the House and on the Chief Whip to enable an early debate to be held on this subject?
	I have a summary of the document which is about a quarter of the size of the report itself. All of us who know Sir Ronald Waterhouse will be aware of how thoroughly and how conscientiously he will have gone into the whole subject. However, two points stand out. These complaints were probably ignored for years because of the cloak of respectability that surrounded the headmasters and some of the foster parents who may have been regarded as respectable people. Complaints were made by children which were disregarded and probably not sufficiently appreciated by anyone. I suspect that the cloak of respectability prevented proper inquiry for years and years.
	My next point has appeared several times in the past few days in various articles. I have had some dealings with children in the course of my life. It is important that every child should have someone in whom he or she can confide and who can offer them the love and the care to permit that to occur. Often the bureaucratic organisations that we set in train to deal with these kinds of problems select the wrong people to establish contact with the child. Much thought will have to be given to the best means of appointing a children's friend, as it were. That may be a good natured, entirely trusted mother in the neighbourhood who has children of her own and the necessary patience to listen when a child has something to impart and wants to confide in someone.
	I recollect that the Minister said that in 1996 Clwyd County Council, on legal advice, did not--

Lord Burlison: My Lords, only 20 minutes are allowed for questions on the Statement. I hope that noble Lords will keep their questions short so as not to deny others the opportunity to ask questions.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, there is reference to a report commissioned by Clwyd County Council. Will the House have an opportunity to see the report?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, my Lords. The inquiry found that, because of its nature, it was totally inappropriate for the report to be published. Detailed work is being carried out with the Local Government Association in order that any future local authority inquiry is established in such a way that its report will be in a form that can be published. The ministerial task group on children's safeguards will be discussing this matter at its next meeting on the 13th.
	As to the question of a debate on this issue, that is a matter for the usual channels. I agree in the main with the other points made by the noble Lord.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is particularly helpful to have the Statement repeated because, as other noble Lords have said, this is by any standards a substantial document to read and to study. It will no doubt require careful consideration by all.
	The Statement confirmed what many of us feared--that many children in North Wales experienced a dreadful catalogue of abuse and exploitation. All noble Lords will recognise that many of the children who come into the care of local authorities have already experienced considerable disadvantage in their young lives. Many will have had disturbing and destructive experiences; many will have had their confidence and self-esteem seriously undermined; and many will have been let down by the very adults they had a right to look to for their care and protection. Because of this, many of these young people will crave affection, recognition and reassurance. It is for that reason that some of them will find that this can be expressed only through physical contact.
	Does the Minister agree that we should bear in mind the key points in the report: that this was essentially a failure of management; a failure to set and uphold good standards of practice; a failure to properly monitor performance; a failure to provide proper safeguards; a failure to be vigilant; and, most of all, a failure to listen to children and young people?
	Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we need to persuade all those who have a responsibility for the services which look after children and young people to have the courage to tackle inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords--

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords--

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we should hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for at least two reasons.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I join in the expressions of gratitude to the noble Baroness for making this horrific Statement. She will understand that I feel extremely uncomfortable about it because it states that the first complaints emerged in 1986, some months before I left the Welsh Office. Therefore I am clearly concerned about the criticisms made about the Welsh Office.
	Does the Minister agree that one benefit has come out of this appalling tale, and that is that we have brought the situation into the open? It is clear that if Ministers and leaders of local government had had at the time even an approximation of an understanding of the facts, action would have been taken much sooner. We now have the opportunity to move forward on the basis of knowledge.
	Perhaps the Minister can answer one specific point. We have had quite a lot of information about those who have been named in the report and the actions being taken. The noble Baroness said that some alleged abusers who had not been named had given evidence. Can the Minister say whether they have not been named because they are innocent? If that is not the case and some of them may have been abusers, can I have the Minister's assurance that appropriate action will be taken to ensure that no further abuse takes place from that source; that action will be taken to ensure that those people do not take up positions; and that, in appropriate cases, prosecutions will take place.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a detailed analysis in the report as to why the tribunal felt it should take a particular line and policy with regard to names. It was unable to interview some of the people referred to because they were at that time being investigated by the police, and some of them were sent to prison. I can assure the noble Lord that the judgments made by the tribunal will not lead to anyone against whom allegations were founded being able to work with children. As to the request for a debate, that must be referred to the usual channels.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the Statement and on the steps that they have taken on this vital issue. Does not my noble friend agree that the nub of the problem is this: we are issuing mandatory requirements, we need more mandatory requirements, but the mandatory requirements of the Children Act 1989, to which my noble friend referred, have been neglected and not implemented by many councils? Does she not agree that the challenge now is to ensure that the new legislation and the existing legislation are fully implemented? If that does not happen, the whole thing falls to bits.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is one of the problems with all legislation. In this case, my noble friend has made an extremely important point. For example, not only are local authorities now responsible for risk assessment when they identify individuals, but that process is to be monitored--in the case of Wales by the Assembly. I understand many local authorities have already commissioned the NSPCC to undertake that work on their behalf.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for my negligent discourtesy earlier. As someone who has had the unhappy experience of examining witnesses in North Wales, Cheshire and Liverpool institutional child abuse cases on behalf of the prosecution and, in other cases, on behalf of the defence, perhaps I may offer two important practical conclusions from the Waterhouse report.
	First, the observation by those who have experience of these cases that there is far less danger of abuse--and of false accusations of abuse, which do occur--if children in institutions at any given time are under the supervision of both men and women working together, rather than men, or for that matter women, working alone.
	May I also offer the observation for the Minister's consideration that a modern disciplinary code is needed as a matter of urgency, which would include as a specific disciplinary offence the failure of a professional carer to report sexual abuse by another carer in the same institution.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord raised the issue of a modern disciplinary code. It is my recollection that that is in the report. As regards men and women working together, I agree that that is less likely to lead to a problem. But, I repeat, people can be extremely manipulative, convincing and devious.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sometimes prisons have better facilities and safeguards than care homes for children? Does she further agree that there should be a board of visitors--consisting of interested people who love and care for children, such as mothers and retired people--which would be able to go into care homes to defend the children and to watch out for child abusers, as we did as members of boards of visitors to prisons.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very interesting proposition. I am sure that it will be given proper consideration. As many of your Lordships who have worked with the voluntary sector will know, one of the problems is that it is liable to infiltration. I remember the shock I felt when I discovered that one of the Scout leaders in an area where all three of my children had gone camping with the Scouts was found guilty of child abuse, sexual abuse. I assumed that my children would tell me. Setting a framework in which children feel that they can speak about matters which may make them feel guilty is extremely important. I am sure that other noble Lords heard on the radio this morning the young man describe how, as a boy, he went to his head teacher and was further abused.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It has not been an easy Statement for the Minister to read out, certainly as a parent and mother herself. It is a shocking report. I am sure that any noble Lord who has listened only to the Statement will now read the report carefully.
	I am not only concerned about those in a position of trust, who really cannot be forgiven for what they did and for the way in which they let down the children in their care. Paragraph 52.36 of the report states,
	"We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years, in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred".
	It is clear that people who are not in a position of trust specifically relating to those young people were in fact guilty of abusing them.
	The Bill lowering the age of consent being read in another place, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone in a position of trust to have a sexual relationship with a boy or girl between the ages of 16 to 18, needs now to be strengthened to the effect that any person who has sexual relations with a young person in such circumstances will be considered to have acted criminally. The difficulty is that lowering the age of consent will make children all the more vulnerable to people who will always prey on them. There is a passage in the report that I hope the Minister will agree makes disturbing reading. It leads one to the conclusion that when the Bill comes before this House, it will need to be considerably strengthened or not supported at all.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in my experience I have never seen any evidence that there is a greater percentage risk of boys and young men being abused by homosexuals than of girls and young women being abused by heterosexuals. In my experience--and, I know from the noble Baroness's work, in her experience too--far too many vulnerable young people are outside the framework of a responsible professional adult and out in the wider community where they are prey to people. The support and aftercare of children who have been in care is extremely important in that context.
	I agree on one matter with the noble Baroness: that young people between 16 and 18, be they homosexual or heterosexual, may be preyed upon. We need only look at the problems of young female prostitution in the streets to see that. I believe that the noble Baroness is going to draw me into far too lengthy a discussion of those issues.

Baroness David: My Lords, I congratulate Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his tribunal on proposing that there should be a children's rights commissioner. A great number of us have wanted a commissioner for children's rights for a long time. I hope that the example set by Wales, if it carries out that recommendation, will be followed by England.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in England it is proposed that a children's rights director should be established as a senior post within the national care standards commission. It will be a senior appointment concerned with promoting high standards and safeguarding the welfare of children within the remit of the commission. In Scotland, consultation is under way on the legislative programme for autumn, which will end in March. Proposals are being considered. There is no government initiative on a children's commissioner, although a memorandum is soon to be presented to the Scottish parliamentary committee. In Northern Ireland, work has begun on a Bill which sets out to achieve the same ends as in England and Wales. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but I believed it important to put that on the record.

Representation of the People Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 12 [Changes relating to absent voting at elections in Great Britain]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 14, line 13, leave out (", Wales and Scotland") and insert ("and Wales").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment is very much a probing amendment. I understand the first half of Clause 12(1), but I do not understand the second. I understand that Schedule 4 will have effect in parliamentary elections,
	"in relation to England, Wales and Scotland".
	I have no problem with that. It seems correct that any changes at parliamentary level, which I hope will be through primary legislation, will apply throughout the whole country. However, I have difficulty with sub-paragraph (b), which establishes that Schedule 4 will have effect as regards local government elections in Scotland.
	I have two problems. We rehearsed the first before the Statement. I shall not go into it again, but I simply mention it: it seems wrong that experiments conducted only in England should be rolled out in local government in Scotland. My stronger concern is that local government in Scotland is, of course, no longer the responsibility of this Parliament. It has been devolved. I have before me the Scotland Act 1998, which makes it perfectly clear in Part II, Section 3 of Schedule 5 that this Parliament has responsibility only for elections for membership of the Commons and of the European Parliament. There is one exception in local government terms, which is the franchise at local government elections. In fact, all the other matters concerning local government and local government elections in Scotland have been devolved.
	My question is therefore: is this Parliament taking back a power which the Scotland Act gave to the Scottish Parliament? I suggest that the Minister is careful in his answer, because I warn him that if that may be done in this case by the executive, I shall use it as a precedent for amendments to other legislation on any matter devolved to the Scottish Parliament when such matters come before the House with regard to England and Wales. I should be grateful for some explanation of why this Parliament can legislate for something which we have devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is indeed a canny Scot. He has played close attention to the script. I am delighted that that is the case. I am absolutely over the moon that he has been fully converted to the good cause of devolution. He is protecting, as he rightly should as a Scot, the rights of the Scottish Parliament.
	I believe that I can set his mind at rest. Elections to the other place are, as he says, a reserved matter. It is right that provisions relating to absent voting at parliamentary elections in Scotland should be included in the Bill. As the noble Lord has informed us, the conduct of local elections in Scotland is a devolved matter, and quite rightly too. Accordingly, when preparing the legislation, we consulted the Scottish Parliament about whether provisions relating to Scottish local elections should be in the Bill.
	Perhaps if I read to the Committee the text of a resolution passed by the Scottish Parliament, the noble Lord may be satisfied on that point. It states:
	"That the Parliament endorses the principle of ensuring consistency of absent voting arrangements for parliamentary and local elections in Scotland as set out in the Representation of the People Bill and agrees that the relevant clause to achieve this end in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament".
	There we have it--the agreement of the Scottish parliament that in order to achieve consistency the matter should be considered in this Bill in the UK Parliament. It is for that reason, and for no other sinister purpose or reason, that the Bill includes provisions relating to absent votes at Scottish elections. On that basis, I am sure that the noble Lord will want to reconsider his amendments.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I just wonder idly why, in the interests of having a uniform system in the United Kingdom, the question of student fees is not coming back here. I certainly thank the noble Lord for that explanation. It would appear, as the late Enoch Powell said, that power devolved is power retained. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 agreed to.

Baroness Fookes: moved Amendment No. 118A:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:IDENTIFICATION AT POLLING STATIONS
	(" . Prior to the issue of a ballot paper, the presiding officer shall require each elector to identify himself by one of the following items of documentary evidence--
	(a) a valid United Kingdom or European Union passport,
	(b) a valid United Kingdom or European Union driving licence,
	(c) a Department of Social Security pension, unemployment or family credit benefit book,
	(d) a National Health Service medical card,
	(e) a certificate of verification as issued by the electoral registration officer, or
	(f) other such documentary evidence as may in the reasonable opinion of the presiding officer concerned constitute such evidence of the matters provided for within this section.").

Baroness Fookes: I hope that this new clause will be crystal clear in its intention. The idea is that before voting every voter should give some proof of identity. I have framed the amendment in this way because I felt that if it was left to the discretion of the presiding officer as to whether or not he asked for proof of identity, it might be tempting to do so in relation to someone who was shabbily dressed or suspicious looking. That could then be regarded as discrimination. If everyone walking into the polling station has to provide means of identification, that charge could not be brought.
	I have suggested various official documents which I hope people will consider reasonable--a driving licence, a passport, social security documents, and the like; or anything else which the presiding officer considers reasonable in order to prove the identity of that person. I do so because the present system has an in-built weakness in as much as the presiding officer really cannot challenge anyone's identity by asking for evidence. I believe that in Northern Ireland proof of identity is required to deal with the specific problem, which it has had in the past and may still have for all I know, of personation on a fairly wide scale. When we are making all these changes and we are invited to think afresh on electoral systems, that is a good moment to repair what I believe to be a weakness.
	Indeed, I suspect that the weakness will become greater as we embark on the various experiments which may well become general and universal. If, for example, we have one central polling station, or if there are the mobile polling stations about which we spoke earlier today, that may make it less easy for presiding officers to determine the identity of voters. Moreover, we are going to have people who have no specific address but are considered to have some connection with a locality, which makes it even more difficult to decide who they are without other means of identification.
	Furthermore, there are likely to be increasing numbers of referenda on specific topics. That does not particularly appeal to me, but if a referendum is to take place on an issue about which people feel very strongly, we may well see personation and fraud on a greater scale. One has only to think of the fury that is engendered by the issues of fox hunting, abortion, or whatever it may be, to know that people become infuriated and uptight. Such referenda will provide a greater temptation.
	I understand also that when we have given advice on elections abroad, we have suggested that means of identification should be part and parcel of the whole system. My suggestion therefore seems to be a sensible and not very radical one. I gather that most European countries ask for means of identification before voting. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on what I believe to be a reasonable and sensible suggestion. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I should like to add my voice in support of what my noble friend said. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment. My noble friend has made out a persuasive case. What she proposes would help to protect the integrity of the electoral process. That is extremely important. I addressed that point at Second Reading and I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I put forward then.
	I can anticipate the Minister's response. I suspect he will say that there is no evidence of any significant abuse. However, we know that no systematic study has been carried out to determine whether there is a real problem. There is some evidence that occasionally there has been a problem, as we know from Winchester at the previous election, but no study has been carried out to see whether there is a serious problem.
	In the absence of such a study, there are two reasons for having the safeguard proposed by my noble friend. The first is as a reassurance. Electors should know that there is a safeguard. That is important to the integrity of the process. The other is as a deterrent: to deter anyone who may be tempted to abuse the system. What my noble friend proposes would help to protect the integrity of the process.
	At Second Reading I put forward a slightly different way of addressing the problem. But I think that my noble friend's amendment is a step in the right direction and I hope that it gets a fair wind.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may make one or two comments about this subject. I have some sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment. I hope that we can give the matter further consideration because I am not absolutely certain that what is in the amendment is the right way of tackling the problem. I agree that we have to be careful about abuse and that we have to have safeguards.
	I should like to make one point about the European elections, particularly with regard to the elections conducted in the new democracies. They were very different because all those countries have identity cards. The noble Baroness's amendment raises that whole question. Therefore, I suggest that we need to give the matter further consideration.
	I do not have a problem with identity cards, but I understand the reasons why other people do. I came back from so many of my visits to eastern Europe absolutely enthused about the identity card, and for one reason: people could register on election day because they had an identity card. It meant that people were not precluded from voting. It seemed to be a sensible system. There is merit in thinking about how we can ensure that there is not abuse. I cannot remember the other suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his Second Reading speech. I shall have to look it up. I hope that the Minister will agree that we should look at this matter again.

Lord Biffen: I welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Fookes. There is widespread unease about the state of electoral registration with regard to those who are entitled to vote and those who never go through the process of getting on to the register. I have the instinct that those who do not register today comprise a far greater number than would have been the case five, 10 or 15 years ago. We have no hard evidence. We know that those who are registered then turn up at a general election. But the percentage abstaining or the percentage not voting is tending to increase; and against the rather surprising background of there now being wider political coverage by formal political parties than has been the case hitherto.
	In those circumstances, there is a feeling of, "How do we make voting easier?" I am not sure that that really is the correct question. There is much merit in trying to attach to the whole process of voting not effort but certainly a qualification; something one holds in one's hand without which one cannot vote. My noble friend Lady Fookes has expressed not a restrictive attitude; it is an attempt to make voting a rather formal exercise of a privilege that has been fought for over the years. It would be no bad thing if we tried to restore that sense to voting--a sense that would certainly have been entertained before the First World War, when gaining the vote was still in recent memory. Having to, as it were, claim your vote is a very sensible gesture. I wish my noble friend well in her pursuit of that objective.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lady Fookes has done us a service in introducing the amendment. When we discussed the Scottish and Welsh referendum rules, I raised the question of identification. The debate ended unsatisfactorily. It was perfectly clear that if a presiding officer had some doubts, he was entitled to say, "You are Mr Smith?", but when the person said, "Yes, I am Mr Smith", that was an end of the business so far as I could see. The electoral officer had no entitlement to ask the person to prove his identity. A voter who is impersonating Mr Smith will of course say that he is Mr Smith. So there is a problem.
	I live in the constituency of Glasgow Govan, where these matters are something of a worry. Indeed, there is no doubt that personation has taken place in that constituency. It is more a matter of who organises it, not whether it takes place--there is no doubt that it does. The only way to stop that happening is to ask for some means of identification. We must begin thinking about that.
	If we are to go down the road of electronic voting and of people voting at different polling stations, not only in their own area, there is a fair chance that presiding officers over much of the country will either know the person voting, or have a vague idea when they look at the register that people were not who they had thought them to be.
	If we are to introduce mobile polling stations and people are able to vote at any station, in a school, a supermarket or whatever, and if we have electronic voting--which is what we should have to do in order to achieve that--identification becomes a much more important problem. I shall be surprised if the Minister accepts my noble friend's amendment. However, I hope that he will indicate that, as we move to new voting systems, the need for identification may well increase.

Lord Bach: This has been another fascinating debate, distinguished by the powerful group of noble Lords who have spoken to these two amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asks whether her amendment is clear. It is indeed very clear in its form. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness's distinguished record as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place for a number of years.
	I cannot resist the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, on the importance of voting. He is absolutely right. It is an important event. He spoke about the First World War and the time before that. I should like to bring the noble Lord slightly further forward and point to the fact that women under 21 did not have the vote until the 1929 general election. I mention that for the personal reason that I am fortunate enough to be the great nephew of Mrs Pankhurst. She would understand completely, as will all women, what the noble Lord is saying and how important the vote is.
	Having made those helpful remarks, I am not sure that I can be quite as helpful in the rest of what I say. All of us share the noble Baroness's desire to prevent electoral fraud. Her motives in tabling Amendment No. 118A are good. The noble Baroness is right. A requirement to provide documentary proof of identity before being issued with a ballot paper already exists in Northern Ireland. That is a reflection of the special difficulties with electoral fraud that have been experienced there.
	However, I must tell the Committee that there is no evidence of similar problems occurring in Britain. Our minds are never closed on this subject; however, the Government would be most reluctant, without very good cause, to introduce new measures which would make it harder for people here to cast their vote.
	The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which had representatives of political parties and electoral administrators among its members, examined all aspects of electoral procedure but saw no need to make a recommendation of this kind. More pertinently in this case, the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place specifically considered this issue as part of its inquiry into electoral law and administration. Reporting in September 1998, the committee concluded (at paragraph 102):
	"We broadly agree that there is at present no great problem with impersonation in British elections outside Northern Ireland, and we do not see a need to introduce any additional requirements to prove identity before being given a ballot paper".
	Amendment No. 136, tabled by the noble Lord, is obviously prompted by the most impeccable of motives. But is it necessary? All or many Members of the Committee are no doubt assiduous voters in local elections. Some Members of the Committee, including myself, will recall voting in general elections, although, alas, that is not something that we are able to do now. So your Lordships will have considerable experience of what happens in a polling station. I imagine that experience is similar to mine. If you have taken your polling card with you, the presiding officer will generally ask you to confirm the details on it. If you have forgotten to take your polling card, you will be asked for your name and address.
	That is normally the end of the matter. However, if the presiding officer has any reason for doubt, he can put the statutory questions that are set out in Rule 35 of the Parliamentary Election Rules. That seems to us at present to be a perfectly satisfactory system and there is no reason to require the presiding officer to put those questions to every single elector, as we believe would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
	The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, to whose report the Bill gives effect, had, as I said, experts--both administrators and representatives of political parties-- among its membership. They saw no need to make a recommendation for change in this area either.
	Having said all that, we shall of course keep a close watch on what happens to the electoral process in the years that lie ahead. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment; however, I do so not on the basis that that is the end of the argument for ever--it clearly is not. We are not minded at present to go down the route that she suggests, but our minds are not closed to the issue. I do not say that we shall return to it during the course of the Bill, but it is certainly something that the Government will keep very much in mind.

The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, the words "shall require" in the amendment could be replaced with "may require", and sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) could be removed. That would leave only the provision in sub-paragraph (f). In other words, if the electoral officer had any doubt, he could ask for documentary proof as evidence, which could be a credit card or any other form of identification. That would remove the valid point made by the noble Lord; namely, the need to ask every elector for proof of identity, which would be a waste of time. It would give the electoral officer a fallback position if required and it would not clog up the system, which the amendment might otherwise do. I am trying to be helpful.

Lord Bach: I accept the noble Earl's intervention as helpful, as always. I should like to consider the point. We are not minded to give such a power to the presiding officer, although it may well be that, as part of the questioning that he can undertake with any voter whom he suspects, he can ask for identification. I shall have to check that out before giving a proper answer to the noble Earl. I should like to consider his suggestion and perhaps write to him with something that I hope may satisfy him.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was interested to hear the noble Lord's lineage and I congratulate him on the distinction that he enjoys. In the circumstances, I am disappointed that this does not provide a suitable opportunity for him to demonstrate the militancy which may be expected of him in view of his distinguished forebear.
	I long have suspected that the Home Office does not believe that there is any source of good ideas other than within its own walls. The noble Lord shakes his head. I hope that he will provide evidence to prove me wrong; if so, I shall much enjoy it. The particular observation of the noble Lord which worried me was that the Government would keep a close watch on the situation. That is one of those "bromide" phrases which mean absolutely nothing. I wonder what would be said by those on the other side of the Committee, who are so much more eloquent than I, if a Minister from these Benches stood up to say that he would keep a close watch on the matter. That would provide no satisfaction to noble Lords; and I do not expect that it will afford my noble friend, who moved this amendment with such clarity and skill, any lasting sense of satisfaction.
	Perhaps the noble Lord will think again and take away the amendment, not merely say that the Government will not accept it. It will not cost the noble Lord anything to do that, but it will give the impression, albeit perhaps a rather shallow one, that every now and again the Home Office is prepared to give a little thought to ideas that come from another source.

Lord Bach: I am most distressed that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, believes that the Home Office is closed to ideas. That may have been so at the time he was such a distinguished member of the previous government. Perhaps in his day the reply that I have given would have been considered as nothing more than a "bromide" form of words.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I assure the noble Lord that it makes very little difference to me from which party a particular government come. I am quite capable of making the same kind of comment about either.

Lord Bach: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that was always so.

Noble Lords: Yes!

Lord Bach: I accept from those who know the noble Lord much better than I do that it was always so. I am sorry that I am not militant enough for the noble Lord's purposes; the time may come when I am. To a certain extent, the noble Lord's contributions in this Chamber sometimes make up for my lack of militancy. My response is not meant to be a "bromide"; the Government have an open mind on this matter. However, for the moment we want to leave matters as they are and consider how they work out in the next couple of years.

Baroness Fookes: I wondered why the Minister referred so flatteringly to my time as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee; later in his speech I realised why. I do not accept everything that the Home Affairs Select Committee may decide subsequent to my membership of it--or even, on occasions, when I was a member of it.
	I am slightly disappointed. I believe that the Government could take this matter further than they are prepared to do. I am willing to accept some of the assurances given by the Minister in the face of all the evidence. Having seen both main parties in government over the years, that is very trusting of me--far more so than my noble friend Lord Peyton, who I believe never gives anyone the benefit of the doubt. I hope that the Minister will do more than simply keep an open mind and that he will look at the matter more closely.
	I should like to put one question to the noble Lord. In connection with another amendment, I made reference to a pilot scheme being undertaken by the City of Plymouth. Plymouth wants early voting and a single centralised polling station in the centre of the city. What I did not quote then (because it was not relevant) but quote now is its suggested voting procedures, which state:
	"(c) ii) The elector must produce a poll card or some other proof of identity before a ballot paper is issued".
	Do I take it that when this comes before whoever is to make a decision on this matter such a procedure will not be accepted, even for a pilot scheme?

The Earl of Onslow: The Minister does not know the answer.

Lord Bach: The noble Earl is right: I am quite prepared to admit that I do not know the answer. However, we shall look at the form of the consent to that pilot scheme to discover whether it has been accepted in full or whether that part has been left out, and write to the noble Baroness. I congratulate the noble Baroness on saving that particular shot until the end of the debate.

The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said recently that answers in the form of letters to Peers were of interest only to Peers. This appears to be an important answer which should somehow appear on the record rather than be simply placed in the Library. I do not know how that can be arranged.

Lord Bach: Perhaps the best way to do it is by means of a Written Parliamentary Question, in which case it will be on the record. We shall do our best to assist the noble Baroness.

Baroness Fookes: I do not believe that we can go any further tonight. On the assumption that I am unlikely to win a Division if I seek to call one, somewhat reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope to fight again another day.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 4 [Absent voting in Great Britain]:
	[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 34, line 49, at end insert ("by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse, or").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 38, line 7, at end insert--
	("(12) When a nominated proxy is approved by an electoral registration officer to hold a permanent or particular proxy vote for an elector, the election registration officer shall write within three working days of the application to the elector to confirm the name and address of the appointed proxy and the duration of the appointment of the proxy vote.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 123 relates to proxy voting. It is clear from the previous debate that, for understandable reasons, we do not have much of a clue how much personation goes on. Equally, we probably do not have much of a clue about the extent to which fraudulent use of proxy votes occurs. I am advised that it is relatively easy to apply for a proxy without the particular elector being asked to give his consent. Obviously, a person who is intent on doing this will select someone who has, to that person's knowledge, left the country, or who will be away on polling day or, in the case of a Jehovah's Witness, who may be registered but is known not to vote.
	It has been put to me that there may well be a serious loophole here that can be closed by incorporating something like my amendment on the statute book. When someone asks for a proxy vote, the registration officer should write to the elector concerned and ask whether he has appointed the person as a proxy. The matter is fairly self-evident and I am sure the Minister understands the point that I seek to make. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. As Members of the Committee will be aware the Working Party on Electoral Procedures looked at the whole question of absent votes in considerable detail. It made a number of recommendations to make it easier for people to obtain and cast postal votes, and these are reflected in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
	However, the working party did not feel able to make any similar recommendations, for good reasons, in relation to proxy votes because, as it put it,
	"there are a number of current police investigations being held into allegations of proxy vote abuse".
	The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is as aware of those as I am.
	Perhaps I may digress briefly. About eight or nine years ago in a closely fought, perhaps somewhat bitter, by-election in my locality there was a terrible abuse of proxy voting. A proxy vote had been stolen from someone suffering from Alzheimer's. That person was a long-standing Labour voter. Someone claimed a vote in a form which was wrong and quite wicked. The individual was entirely defenceless.
	A system in which the elector on whose behalf a proxy has been applied for is sent a letter confirming their proxy appointment would certainly deal with the first of these mischiefs and, possibly, the second. An elector who had not applied for a proxy but who had received such a letter could raise the alarm.
	We would need to be sure of the practicalities. I am conscious that it could represent a significant burden to the electoral registration officers during an election period when they will be at their busiest, particularly if it means that they will have to speak to administrators generally to seek their views on whether it can be done.
	Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for the time being but on the clear understanding that I am sympathetic to the purpose behind it. We shall try to bring back some provision to cover that eventuality. As I said, the police are continuing with their inquiries. The working party has spoken on the issue. There is cross-party agreement that we must do all we can to stamp out abuse and fraud. I believe that, as I am sure the noble Lord does.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for those comments. I support the principle underlying the amendment, although not the wording. If the Home Office and others are looking for suggestions, they might turn to page 42 of the 1993 report of the Labour Party's working party on electoral systems which gives a number of suggestions as to how this issue could be resolved.

The Earl of Onslow: First, I congratulate the Minister on the first really good answer I have heard him give during his time in this Chamber. If that sounds somewhat patronising it is not intended to be.
	The noble Lord mentioned that police inquiries are continuing. Because police inquires are going on, why does that mean that one cannot change the system? The logic of that would mean that police inquiries could continue until the third millennium. Something may be wrong but one cannot change it because police inquiries are going on. I cannot follow the logic. I may just be being stupid; it is well within the bounds of possibility.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am prepared to accept the noble Earl's congratulations. I am sure that he would not dare to patronise me in any sense, shape or form.
	The importance of the police conducting their inquiries is that something can be learnt from those inquiries. I agree with the noble Earl. We do not want to hold up improvements to the system. For that very good reason, I said from the Dispatch Box today that we are happy to consider ways in which we can make some progress. The letter writing scheme may well be one way to achieve it. But we need to speak, through our officials, to the electoral administrators to see what we can come up with which will satisfy the precise point.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding on the issue. Perhaps I have a lesson to learn: that the shorter my introductory speech the more chance there is that my ideas will be listened to sympathetically! I may try it again shortly.
	The noble Lord underlined the problems I sought to address. I did not go into the detail; I did not think that necessary. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I think that we should address the issue. It is interesting that the working party did not wish to see proxy voting extended because of the problem of abuse. Perhaps the Bill will give us an opportunity to tighten up the provision. For some people proxy voting is still an important way to exercise their vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities]:
	[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McNally: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 14, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) In rule 25 (provision of polling stations) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted--
	("(1A) The returning officer shall not provide as a polling station any place which is not accessible to people in wheelchairs or otherwise with restricted mobility and cannot reasonably be made accessible to them by temporary ramps or other equipment."").

Lord McNally: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 127. In an age in which we are legislating for access to taxis, buses and all public places, the amendments are self-evident. I wish to ensure that during the experiments provisions for the disabled are not omitted, perhaps resulting in inaccessible polling stations. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may make one addition to the amendment. Problems with access do not relate only to getting into the polling station from outside. In some polling stations the ballot box is placed so high that someone in a wheelchair cannot reach it; and sometimes cannot reach even the tellers' tables. We should consider extending the provision to include access inside as well as outside the polling station.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate the motives underlying the amendments. The noble Lord is to be congratulated on moving them.
	The first of the amendments, on the face of it admirable, may not assist. In certain circumstances the amendments could result in lower overall turn-out in certain area--exactly the opposite of what the Bill intends to achieve.
	Amendment No. 125 would require returning officers to ensure that all designated polling places have all-disabled access. Returning officers are already required, as far as reasonably practical, to designate as polling stations only places which are accessible for voters who are disabled. I cite the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended in 1985. That is to assist them in identifying and assessing such places. There is Home Office guidance on minimum standards.
	In practice, most polling places are in public buildings which already have good disabled access. Most other buildings can be temporarily adapted, and I shall say more about that in a moment. There remain, however, a few places which cannot reasonably and practically be made accessible and where there is no alternative building in the area. That is the problem. In these cases the returning officer has a rather difficult choice. He can either designate that polling place for use in the knowledge that, should a disabled voter turn up, he or she may not be able to gain access; or he does not designate it. The amendment would mean that the building could not be used. In turn that could mean inconvenient and perhaps lengthier journeys to other polling places for all electors in that area with the consequent effects on the overall turn-out.
	Therefore, although desirable, and a splendid and admirable amendment, it could have a self-defeating element: it could discourage other voters who might have to travel much further. Returning officers have a duty to do all they can reasonably and practically to provide access for voters who are disabled. But they also have a duty to the wider electorate. The amendment would restrict their flexibility and may result in greater disadvantage for a wider population.
	We want to do everything we can to assist disabled voters in gaining access to the electoral process. But this amendment could cause greater harm than good.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 127, where polling places are not accessible but can be made so. Here returning officers are obliged to take all reasonable and practical steps to do that, for example by providing temporary ramps. I take the point my noble friend Lady Gould made about addressing not only external but also internal access; and that is a matter which is carefully thought through.
	In the current situation the procedures are such that assistance can be sought both in terms of Home Office guidance and in the form of direct grants. Local authorities have been very enthusiastic in taking up the 50 per cent grants that we make available to cover the cost of adaptations. I shall read some figures. The Home Office has since 1992 given grants for temporary ramps totalling £315,000, £120,000 of which has been given in the last two years. That amounts to a total spending on temporary ramps of more than £650,000 over the last few years. One can probably buy a lot of ramps for £650,000, so those adaptations have made a very big difference indeed. We want to encourage more local authorities to come forward and claim their percentage from the Home Office.
	There is therefore some indication that, where necessary, these facilities are being provided because of a combination of existing legislation which already requires them and government assistance of which returning officers take full advantage. In view of my comments and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 127 is not necessary and will not press it.

The Earl of Onslow: I again seek information. The noble Lord has perfectly reasonably said that there are some polling stations which it is extremely difficult to make wheelchair friendly. How many?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That probably is a question from hell! I am ever ready to try to match the questions that are pitched at us over the Dispatch Box. However, I could not even promise to undertake to have a survey completed to satisfy that one.

The Earl of Onslow: I accept that it is a question from hell. The point is that the noble Lord has been briefed by his officials, perfectly reasonably, that this is a problem. Therefore, they must have evidence of the problem. Has he sifted it? Is it genuine? If it involves one polling station in Caithness, I suppose we can just about live with it. If it spreads wider than that, we perhaps should not. I am asking what the breadth of the problem is. If it is broad, it should be dealt with through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. If, on the other hand, it is so small as to be immaterial, the noble Lord's amendment can almost be accepted anyway.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a problem. Local authorities are charged with the responsibility, through their registration service, of assessing the extent of the problem. Both governments have in recent years made generous grants available, and we wish to encourage as much adaptation as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it is not practical, and the effect of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved could be self-defeating. I do not know how many of those instances there may be. It would be difficult to estimate. In my opinion, we have to proceed on the basis of goodwill. There is a great deal of encouragement from central government, there is an enormous amount of guidance and help given by the Home Office, and there is a tremendous amount of goodwill in the local authorities to tackle these issues. We have the fundamentals in place to make it easier.
	We discussed earlier the practicalities of having mobile polling stations so that people who may be disabled or perhaps less mobile because of their age are able to get to a polling station. I believe that we can tackle these issues in the practical and hard-headed way that we have outlined by way of example today.

Lord McNally: The Minister is probably fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, is not in his place. Had he been, I believe that he would have intervened with some vigour.
	I take the point that a tremendous effort has been made in recent years. However, one of our concerns is that in a period of experimentation where new polling practices and new polling stations are established, they should be disabled friendly. In the case of disabled persons who go into the car parks of large superstores, for example, it would be outrageous if as part of the experiment we added to the problem rather than diminished it. There may, as has been said, be such polling stations.
	The Home Office could well give guidance to returning officers that where polling stations are clearly non-disabled friendly, they should be thinking of phasing them out so that they are narrowed down to a minimum. However, I do not doubt the department's goodwill or the efforts of local authorities. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 14, line 45, at end insert ("and any assistance given shall be in a form which will not enable the identity of the voter to be revealed").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can move Amendment No. 126 fairly briefly. We are dealing in this part of the Bill with,
	"a device of such description as may be prescribed for enabling voters who are blind or partially-sighted to vote ..."
	I have asked for the addition of the words,
	"and any assistance given shall be in a form which will not enable the identity of the voter to be revealed".
	I have in mind the traditional ballot paper. I shall start with the nonsense examples: it quite clearly cannot be an enlarged ballot paper, because that would obviously identify the voter at count; it cannot be a ballot paper in Braille; it cannot be a ballot paper which has in any way been marked by this device, whatever it may be.
	My amendment would reinforce the need for privacy, and I do not see any harm in accepting it. But it is really tabled in order to seek an explanation and an assurance from the Minister regarding the device. I presume that one is contemplated. Otherwise, why put it in the Bill? I would like an assurance that the device will in no way leave marks on the ballot paper which would allow the identity of the voter to be discerned. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The reference to "a device" sounds rather painful. I do not believe that this is quite as draconian as a "device". I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. As he listens, I am sure that he will get the reassurance that he seeks.
	One important change which the Bill introduces is that blind and partially-sighted people will in future be able to vote using a template. As I explained at Second Reading, we have in mind something like a cardboard sleeve into which the ballot paper could be slotted. The sleeve will have holes cut out of it, so that the boxes for marking a vote will be visible. The voters will then be able to feel where to put their crosses. When I recently described this plan, somebody responded by saying, "What a simple idea! Why did we not do it years ago?" I am sure that your Lordships will probably be equally positive. It seems to me a very simple way of achieving the objective.
	We do not need to be overly formal about this. Unlike voters who are assisted by a companion, no other people are involved, which in turn means that no signatures or lists need to be involved. We believe that the template can simply sit on the presiding officer's table and that a voter who wants to use it can simply ask for it. He will not have to say why he needs it, nor will he have to fill in any unnecessary paperwork--no added bureaucracy. The electoral register will not be marked in any special way. Therefore, there will be no way at the end of polling day of identifying those who have used the facility. As far as I can discern, a cardboard sleeve as a device will not leave any kind of mark on the ballot paper. I trust that those assurances will sufficiently meet the noble Lord's concerns and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That satisfies me and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.

Lord McNally: moved Amendment No. 127A:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATIONS: MISLEADING NAMES
	(" . In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (the parliamentary elections rules), in rule 6 (nomination of candidates) at the end there shall be inserted--
	"(4) The returning officer shall refuse to accept the nomination of a candidate in a name which has been adopted by the candidate and appears to the returning officer to have been adopted with a view to causing confusion among electors between that candidate and any other person who is or is likely to become a candidate in the same election."").

Lord McNally: I freely confess that the Liberal Democrats are deeply scarred by the experience of name changes, having had to fight a by-election with two Roy Jenkins and at a European election facing a "Literal Democrat"! Name changes can sometimes be seen as amusing. I am reminded of the story of the man whose name was Billy who became so fed up of being called "Silly Billy" that he changed his name to George, whereupon everybody called him "Silly George"! So in some cases, name changes and such like can be seen as amusing, but, on the other hand, we have had to become used to tomfoolery with our electoral system. I am told that returning officers are often reluctant to take action because they do not want to become embroiled in litigation, the cost of which falls on their own local authorities. Therefore, where there is room for abuse, there may be a case for ruling it out in order to protect returning officers and their discretion.
	As the Minister may have gathered, I do not intend to seek to divide the Committee on this issue, but I wonder whether the Home Office has considered it. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, have experience of name changes. As leader of Brighton and Hove Council during the previous general election, I faced the same problem. Someone wanted to stand as the "Conversative" candidate, aping the name from the "Conservative" candidate and we had to go to law to try to sort it out. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment.
	However, we believe that we have tackled the problem. Praise is due to dear old Brighton and Hove Council and to dear old me. I wrote a telling article on the subject, going through our experience, shortly after the general election. Of course, the new, listening, sensitive, incoming Government have tackled the issue and believe that the Registration of Political Parties Act, which we introduced some two years ago, put a stop to that.
	I have not seen new and fresh abuses since then, but if there are any or more imaginative ways of impersonation which so distract the electorate that one party suffers, we should like to hear about them. It is something we cannot tolerate in our electoral process because it frustrates democracy, as it did in the famous and celebrated European elections which caught the eye.
	We do not believe that further statutory provisions are required. Although I sympathise with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, I suggest that it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McNally: The only aspect of the Minister's explanation which amazes me is that anyone in Brighton during the last election should be trying to impersonate the Conservative candidate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Given the nature of the candidate, I am tempted to agree with the noble Lord, but that would be most unfair of me.

Lord McNally: After that clarification, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Page 16, line 41, at end insert--
	(""local government area" has the meaning given by section 203(1) of the 1983 Act;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
	Page 17, line 14, after ("4,") insert--
	("( ) paragraph 6 of Schedule 5,").
	Page 17, line 20, leave out ("and 13") and insert ("to 13C").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 40, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert ("any relevant election,").

Lord Bach: In moving Amendment No. 132, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 133. These government amendments relate to the new false particulars offence which the Bill contains. The Bill makes it an offence to submit a nomination paper which includes a false name or address of a candidate. However, as the Bill stands, this new offence contained in Schedule 5 does not include cases where candidates have forged the signatures of their subscribers or coerced people to sign a nomination paper without the signatory being aware of what it was. These amendments correct that omission and I hope that they will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Page 40, line 24, at end insert ("; or
	(b) anything which purports to be the signature of an elector who proposes, seconds or assents to, the nomination of such a candidate but which he knows--
	(i) was not written by the elector by whom it purports to have been written, or
	(ii) if written by that elector, was not written by him for the purpose of signifying that he was proposing, seconding, or (as the case may be) assenting to, that candidate's nomination.
	(2) In this section "relevant election" means--
	(a) any parliamentary election, or
	(b) any local government election in England or Wales."").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 134:
	Page 40, line 24, at end insert--
	(" . After section 66 insert--
	"Prohibition on publication of exit polls.
	66A.--(1) No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed--
	(a) any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or
	(b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given.
	(2) This section applies to--
	(a) any parliamentary election; and
	(b) any local government election in England or Wales.
	(3) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
	(4) In this section--
	"forecast" includes estimate;
	"publish" means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means;
	and any reference to the result of an election is a reference to the result of the election either as a whole or so far as any particular candidate or candidates at the election is or are concerned." ").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can be brief. The amendment gives effect to a commitment made by my ministerial colleagues in another place to bring forward a government amendment to prohibit exit polls where voting takes place over more than one day.
	There is concern, and rightly so, that where voting takes place over a number of days, the results of exit polls may influence those electors who have not yet cast their vote, whether that be how they vote or whether they choose to vote at all. We cannot allow that.
	The amendment will stop that by preventing the results of any exit polls being made public before the final close of poll. Normal opinion polls and parties telling activities will remain unaffected. I trust that that will satisfy Members of the Committee. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised the issue at Second Reading and that other noble Lords expressed concern. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I welcome the Government's attempt to try to deal with a problem we identified at Second Reading. I want to make two points. My first relates to the text of the amendment. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
	"This section applies to ... any parliamentary election".
	Notwithstanding my complaints about Clause 11, do I take it that that includes elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? After all, a roll-out of a three-day poll could easily happen to them. Furthermore, the Minister explained why Scotland was included in earlier parts of the Bill, but why is it not included in new subsection (2)(b), which refers to:
	"any local government election in England or Wales"?
	My second point is a little more serious. Have the Minister and his department considered whether the amendment accords with the European Convention on Human Rights? Article 10, paragraph 1, of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 reads:
	"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".
	I do not expect an answer tonight, but I flag up the issue. It would be better if the Minister considered with his legal advisers whether the provision would accord with the convention.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure that he will be happy with my answer, but we think--I stress, "we think"--that the provision complies with the ECHR. However, I am determined to check that with officials and I shall ask them for a further view.
	The subsection to which the noble Lord referred does not apply to Scottish and Welsh elections because they have separate election orders which will need corresponding amendment. The answer to his second question is that the Scottish Parliament has not asked for this provision. That is a matter on which it may want to reflect further, but that is the situation. I shall be more than happy to correspond with the noble Lord in order to tie up any other queries.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept the point about the European Convention on Human Rights. I notice that the Minister avoided telling me whether the Government have considered the matter as regards this amendment. I shall not press him any further. I will assume that they have. If the Government have not done so, they certainly will now.
	As regards the Scottish point, I fully accept that the Scottish Parliament has perhaps not asked the Government to include Scotland. Dare I suggest that perhaps they do not know that a prohibition on the publication of exit polls has been put into the Bill? Therefore, my question is this: have they been asked if they wish this Parliament to legislate on the matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will pursue the point somewhat further. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has made a very witty and useful intervention.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 40, line 38, at end insert--
	("( ) Omit rule 20.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Committee will know Rule 20 by heart. It is the official mark which is placed on ballot papers. I raised this matter as regards the Scottish referendum election. I suggested that it was an obsolete rule. I raise it again very briefly to say to the Minister that I still believe it is an obsolete rule. I do not believe that it stops any infringement taking place. In fact, the last time we debated this matter nobody suggested that it did. It was almost a question of, "We've always done it this way and let us carry on with that". I do not believe that it stops infringement.
	Any infringement that one could imagine that the mark would prevent would have to be of the nature of people stealing a wedge of ballot papers and, without the official mark, adding them to a box. Dare I suggest that something would be badly wrong with the tallies at the end of the election if such an event happened, because there would not have been enough "score offs" on the electoral register?
	In addition, we all know that at various elections a certain number of papers are, for inexplicable reasons, spoiled. I suspect that in the rush the clerks at the table simply forget to put the mark on the ballot paper. Frankly, most electors do not bother to look, because, apart from people like ourselves, I doubt whether many electors realise the significance of the official mark. Ballot papers get through without the official mark. Indeed, although it is a painful business, the Winchester argument was over the question of official marks. There did not seem to be any doubt that about 25 electors had properly marked their ballot papers, but because the official mark was missing they were not counted.
	I believe it is time that we scrapped this procedure. Interestingly enough, I have in my defence the Winter 1999 newsletter of the Association of Electoral Administrators. In addition to wishing everyone a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year, the newsletter says this. I shall read out the whole passage because the first part encourages the Minister.
	"At last we see proposals for electoral change. Many of the recommendations in the new Representation of the People Bill reflect the AEA's document Vote for Change which was published some time ago and demonstrates just what a leading role the association has played in producing the new agenda. Somewhat disappointingly, though, some of the practical issues such as the abolition of the stamping instrument, have not been mentioned. But maybe a couple of unstamped ballot papers resulting in an election petition during the pilot scheme might get the Home Secretary to think again".
	Without waiting for a couple of unstamped ballot papers and an election petition, I ask the Home Secretary's representative in the House of Lords to think again. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on his continued mastery of selective quotation. I can see that he has had a very gripping Christmas read. The amendment raises some important issues about the official mark. I am very mindful of the Winchester case. I know that it caused a great deal of distress in certain circles.
	The official mark has its virtues. It dates back to the Ballot Act 1872, so it has a long history of some kind. I believe that we should be thankful for that mark because it has probably prevented many fraudulent instances in local and general elections.
	However, the noble Lord is quite right. I believe that the Home Affairs Committee in another place, in its inquiry into electoral law and administration, discovered that at every recent general election between two and three thousand ballot papers have been rejected because they lack the official mark. That is not a fantastic number of people who have lost their votes in consequence of the official mark not being in place. Nevertheless, it cannot be right. We ought to have something which prevents a person's vote being cancelled because of an inadvertent error by a member of the polling staff.
	We believe that there should be more effort to consider the issue. I am not sure that the noble Lord will be entirely satisfied when I say that he should take comfort from the fact that the Home Office is seized of the need to see whether a suitable replacement can be found for the official mark. The noble Lord is a very imaginative fellow. I am sure that he will produce a suitable replacement even if we do not. On that basis, I invite him not just to withdraw his amendment, but to come forward with some good ideas also.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, at least as far as it went. My suggestion is that we do not need to have a mark at all. Therefore, I do not need an alternative mark. I noticed his phrase,
	"the Home Office is seized of the need".
	It is a good thing that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is no longer here otherwise he might have lighted on that as a variation of "keeping it in mind". I appreciate that the Minister sees the point. He was a little unkind to say that my quotation was selective, because I read out the whole of the paragraph, which included some laudatory comments on what was happening in this Bill.
	The Minister made the point about the Ballot Act. I say to him that, given all the changes that the Government have made to the British constitution, claiming that we have to rest on the Ballot Act 1872 rings a tinge false to those of us who went through the referendum Bill, the Scottish Parliament Bill, the Welsh Assembly Bill--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Will the noble Lord accept on this one occasion that the process of modernisation does not always have to be entirely current and that sometimes we can borrow from history?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That may be so, but it certainly cannot be claimed as a new idea if in fact we keep a ballot mark from 1872. I have listened to the noble Lord's assurance. I believe that the Home Office should have a serious look at this matter so that perhaps by the time the Bill leaves this House we shall have dropped what I believe is a pretty useless exercise as regards the ballot paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 140:
	Page 41, line 32, leave out ("and 13") and insert ("to 13C").
	Page 41, line 33, leave out ("In section 5 (manner of voting), after") and insert ("--(1) Section 5 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit "or local government".
	(3) In subsection (5), omit "or, as the case may be, electoral area".
	(4) After").
	Page 41, line 42, at end insert--
	("(5) In subsection (6), omit "or local government" (wherever occurring).
	(6) For subsection (7) substitute--
	"(7) In this section and sections 6 to 9 of this Act "appropriate rules" means the parliamentary elections rules." ").
	Page 41, line 43, leave out paragraph 13 and insert--
	("13.--(1) Section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)--
	(a) omit ", at local government elections or at both"; and
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "elections to which the application relates" substitute "parliamentary elections".
	(3) In subsection (2), omit--
	(a) "or local government", and
	(b) paragraph (aa),
	and, in paragraph (c), after "his spouse," insert "or by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse,".
	(4) Omit subsection (2A).
	(5) In subsection (3), omit paragraph (a).
	(6) In subsection (4), after "in pursuance of" insert "a declaration of local connection or".
	13A.--(1) Section 7 (absent vote at a particular election and absent voters list) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit--
	(a) "or local government"; and
	(b) in paragraph (b), "or, as the case may be, local government".
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute--
	"(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person who is included in the record kept under section 6 of this Act, but such a person may, in respect of a particular parliamentary election, apply to the registration officer--
	(a) for his ballot paper to be sent to a different address in the United Kingdom, or
	(b) to vote by proxy,
	if he is shown in the record so kept as voting by post at parliamentary elections."
	(4) In subsection (4)--
	(a) omit "or local government"; and
	(b) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for "elections of the kind in question" substitute "parliamentary elections".
	13B.--(1) Section 8 (proxies at elections) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit "or local government".
	(3) Omit subsection (3A).
	(4) In subsection (4), omit "or local government".
	(5) In subsection (5), omit ", or at the same local government election in any electoral area,".
	(6) In subsection (6)--
	(a) omit ", at local government elections or at both"; and
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "electors for elections in respect of which the application is made" substitute "parliamentary electors".
	(7) In subsection (7), omit--
	(a) "or local government"; and
	(b) in paragraph (a) "or, as the case may be, local government".
	(8) For subsection (9) substitute--
	"(9) The appointment may be cancelled by the elector by giving notice to the registration officer, and shall also cease to be in force on the issue of a proxy paper appointing a different person to vote for him at any parliamentary election or elections (whether in the same constituency or elsewhere)."
	13C.--(1) Section 9 (voting as proxy) is amended as follows.
	(2) In each of subsections (1) and (3), omit "or local government".
	(3) In subsection (4), omit--
	(a) ", at local government elections or at both"; and
	(b) in paragraph (a), ", or electoral area,";
	and in paragraph (b) for "the same area" substitute "the same ward".
	(4) Omit subsection (5).
	(5) In subsection (6), omit paragraph (a) (including the final "and").
	(6) In subsection (7), omit "or, as the case may be, electoral area".
	(7) In subsection (8), omit "in respect of elections of the kind in question".
	(8) In subsection (9), omit--
	(a) "or local government"; and
	(b) in paragraph (a), "in respect of elections of the kind in question".
	(9) In subsection (10)--
	(a) in paragraph (a), omit ", local government electors or both (as the case may be)"; and
	(b) in paragraph (b), for "elections of the kind in question" substitute "parliamentary elections".
	(10) In subsection (11), in paragraph (b), omit ", or electoral area,".").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Repeals]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
	Page 42, line 20, column 3, at end insert--
	
		
			   ("Section 49(1) and (2).") 
		
	
	Page 43, column 3, leave out line 26 and insert--
	
		
			   ("In section 5-- (a) in each of subsections (1) and (6), the words "or local government" (wherever occurring), and (b) in subsection (5), the words "or, as the case may be, electoral area". In section 6-- (a) in subsection (1), the words ", at local government elections or at both", (b) in subsection (2), the words "or local government" and paragraph (aa), and (c) subsections (2A) and (3)(a). In section 7-- (a) in each of subsections (1) and (4), the words "or local government", and  (b) in subsection (1)(b), the words "or, as the case may be, local government". In section 8-- (a) in each of subsections (1), (4) and (7), the words "or local government", (b) subsection (3A), (c) in subsection (5), the words ", or at the same local government election in any electoral area,", (d) in subsection (6), the words ", at local government elections or at both", and (e) in subsection (7)(a), the words "or, as the case may be, local government". In section 9-- (a) in each of subsections (1), (3) and (9), the words "or local government", (b) in subsection (4), the words ", at local government elections or at both" and, in paragraph (a), ", or electoral area,", (c) subsection (5), (d) in subsection (6), paragraph (a) (including the final "and"), (e) in subsection (7), the words "or, as the case may be, electoral area", (f) in each of subsections (8) and (9)(a), the words "in respect of elections of the kind in question", (g) in subsection (10)(a), the words "local government electors or both (as the case may be)", and (h) in subsection (11), the words ", or electoral area,".") 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
	Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [The Adult Learning Inspectorate]:

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 181:
	Page 66, line 34, at end insert ("for specific classes of inspection").

Lord Rix: The purpose of this amendment--which has all-party support--is to discover something of the Government's plans for the arrangement of inspections under the new adult learning inspectorate. I am probing generally for an assurance that the new inspectorate will appoint specialist inspectors who have expertise in particular fields and, more specifically, that that expertise will be developed in assessing quality standards in courses for people with learning difficulties, which of course will include people with learning disabilities.
	While one would expect something of a common training for staff working for a new inspectorate, I, and indeed the Disability Consortium, believe there is a strong case for developing specialisms in assessing courses for students with learning difficulties. It is crucial that inspectors understand the problems and barriers that disabled students have had to overcome in coming to the educational training and provision and of the responsibility placed upon providers, both by the new learning and skills councils and by the Disability Discrimination Act, to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure equal participation.
	It is also important that the nature of adult learning is seen as different from the processes of learning experienced by children, particularly in relation to adults with learning difficulties. Many adult students have a wealth of informal and incidental life experiences to build upon and they are often filling gaps in their knowledge and skills. Their learning needs and aspirations rarely follow an easy and smooth path. Inspectors evaluating provision made for disabled adults must recognise this and be sensitive to the nature of learning in adulthood and for the need for ever more creative and sophisticated approaches to meeting such diverse experiences and expectations.
	A related question is whether lay inspectors will have a role once the new adult learning inspectorate opens its doors. There is some evidence that lay inspectors with direct personal experience of disability have added value to the process of inspection. This has worked best in instances where lay inspectors have been fully prepared and have been involved in drawing up the agreed inspection framework with regard to disability issues. It would be a shame if, in our efforts to improve the inspection process, schemes of this kind are diminished.
	Noble Lords may be aware that I made similar points in relation to the new inspectorate being introduced under the Care Standards Bill. In that debate, the Minister was able to respond positively and recognise the importance of retaining and developing specialist inspectors. I hope that the Minister will be minded to do the same today. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support the amendment and to say that a certain degree of specialist knowledge of the particular problems in this area is essential if the job is to be done properly. The noble Lord has already pointed out that in certain types of cases a little specialist knowledge is needed. More knowledge will need to be acquired as the inspection process develops. Introducing categories for certain types of knowledge to match certain types of inspection will be essential or the process will not work well.

Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has made the case for this amendment extremely cleverly and fully and I do not need to add to what he has said. However, it seems to me to be obvious that it is essential to use inspectors who have specialist knowledge of those with learning difficulties. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give the Committee a positive response.

Baroness Blatch: I, too, have added my name to this amendment and I am pleased to support it. When examining the new framework for inspection, a difficulty may arise over the manner in which the two cultures for inspection are brought together. Ofsted works within one framework and the ALI will operate under a different system; these two groups will approach inspection from very different bases. It is not only a question of accommodating the two cultures and then dovetailing them into a common framework, but also a question of ensuring that they are particularly sensitive not only to those with special needs within the school system, but also to those with learning difficulties in the adult learning environment. Nothing I have yet seen in the Bill gives me any comfort that the system will work as sensitively as it should.
	Will the noble Baroness clarify for the Committee how these two separate inspection systems, with different cultural backgrounds and practical approaches towards inspection, will work with one common purpose; namely, to be sufficiently sensitive to be able to deal with those with learning difficulties both pre-16 and post-16?

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Unfortunately there was not enough room to enable me to add my name to the amendment. However, I should like to associate myself with it and support all that has been said in this debate. I echo the plea of my noble friend that the particular knowledge of inspectors currently involved in examining specialist residential colleges is not lost but is put to good use.

Baroness Blackstone: I regret that there was no room on the Marshalled List for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to add her name to this amendment. However, the noble Baroness knows that we always associate her name with amendments of this kind.
	I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others in this short debate and I believe that I can provide the Committee and all those who have contributed with the assurances that are being sought.
	Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 provides a power for the adult learning inspectorate to,
	"appoint such employees, including inspectors, as it thinks fit".
	The amendment would add to this to ensure that specialist inspectors are appointed. No doubt noble Lords want to ensure that the adult learning inspectorate has all the expertise necessary to assess standards in courses for students with disabilities and learning difficulties.
	I agree entirely with the principle that the inspection teams must have the collective experience and expertise to allow effective scrutiny of all aspects of provision covered by the inspection agenda. It is obvious that this principle could not possibly be fulfilled if no expertise is available within the provision of inspection for those with learning difficulties. Our commitment to good provision for such students, indeed our commitment to inclusive education, could be compromised if the adult learning inspectorate did not have the specialists that are needed in this vital area.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the common inspection framework and spoke of the different cultures within the ALI and Ofsted. Of course, the ALI is completely new and so in a sense does not have a culture, although I readily accept that the FEFC and training inspectorates have had somewhat different approaches. However, all three inspectorates have been working extremely closely to devise a common framework. I am confident that this will work well. The common inspection framework will set out the necessary principles about inspectorate expertise. To that end, I have received clear assurances from the three current chief inspectors--those of Ofsted, the Training Standards Council and the FEFC--that their teams will have all the necessary specialist skills and that this will be set out clearly in the framework.
	Provisions relating to the framework are set out in Clauses 66 and 67 and it will be a statutory document, which will be subject to a preliminary consultation in the spring and a more formal one after Royal Assent. I hope that that is helpful and that it will allow Members of the Committee to comment. It will enshrine these and other principles. Therefore, there is no need for them to be explicit on the face of the Bill.
	In summary, we intend that there should be no gaps in the inspection agenda, particularly in provision for people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other Members of the Committee who put their name to this amendment for bringing forward these points because that has allowed me to clarify the policy. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask a question, again, relating to the two cultures. One is a self-evaluative approach; the other is very much an observational approach. How will that be dealt with? Will Ofsted be required to become more self-evaluative or will ALI inspectors who are on the common team become more observational? That seems to me to be most important, especially when dealing not just with those without learning difficulties who are in pre and post-16 education but also when dealing with those with learning difficulties who operate in a situation very different from that of adult learning and in the workplace, which is covered by the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone: Here we want to see the best of both worlds brought together. I believe that there is a case for both an observational approach and for some self-evaluation. Self-evaluation obviously is a good motivator for people. At the same time, I entirely accept that some external scrutiny and observation is required. I believe that the two inspectorates will work together. One--Ofsted--obviously will rely rather more on the approach that it has used in sixth forms in the new role that it will play in relation to full-time 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth-form colleges. At the same time, the rather different, work-based environment on which the adult learning inspectorate will focus may need a slightly different approach. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that the three chief inspectorates are working together to develop this common framework. As I said, there will be an opportunity for further consultation on that issue.

Lord Rix: I warmly welcome the Minister's assurance in the matter of the three inspectorates. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is assured that there will be a specialist approach to Ofsted inspectors, too, in this regard. The assurance from the Dispatch Box is one which certainly I can accept, and I hope that other Members of the Committee can do likewise. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 6 agreed to.
	Clause 50 [The Inspectorate's remit]:
	[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 183:
	Page 20, line 17, leave out ("for persons") and insert ("provided in the further education sector which is suitable to the requirements of those").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 183, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 194 and 195. The purpose of this set of amendments is to rationalise and simplify the inspection system proposed for post-16 education. As set out in the Bill, the system seems to be extraordinarily complex. As my noble friend Lord Tope said at Second Reading:
	"Why on earth do we have the anomaly of two inspection agencies falling over each other to inspect the provision? Why do we need complex rules about 'joint inspection' and a 'common inspection framework'? The obvious and radical answer is to have a single inspection agency for all post-16 education and training which will see its work in the context of lifelong learning".--[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 939.]
	Essentially, these amendments provide the framework for such an agency. They extend the remit of the adult learning inspectorate to cover post-16 education and training in the further education sector and limit the remit of the Chief Inspector of Schools in England to the schools sector. The Minister responded at Second Reading by saying:
	"No single inspectorate could encompass the enormous scale and variety of post-16 education".--[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 946.]
	Yet, the same might be said of the role of the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, whose remit, I believe, is now extended to cover playgroups and babyminders. In this age when, increasingly, inspection means hiring a team of inspectors with the relevant skills and competencies, I cannot see that that is an obstacle. In both bureaucratic and cost terms, it seems unnecessary to have two teams of inspectors invading one institution simultaneously.
	As it is, the proposals before us will mean that in nearly all circumstances there will be joint inspections. Ofsted, seemingly, will be responsible for inspecting the education side of provision and ALI will be responsible for the training side of provision. From these Benches, we fail to understand why the Government have pursued this route and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Genuinely, we do not understand the logic behind it. Implicitly, is there a feeling that where learning and skills council money goes, the adult learning inspectorate must go, too? Thus, sixth forms, whose learning and skills money is being routed through the LEAs nevertheless must be inspected by the adult learning inspectorate as well as by Ofsted and, likewise, Ofsted must have entry into the further education sector. I gather, for example, that of the 250 responses in the consultation, only one--from the Further Education Funding Council--supported the idea of joint inspections. Was that because the Further Education Funding Council was worried about the issue of accountability? I should be glad if the Minister could elucidate that issue for us.
	I believe that we are not alone in worrying that the Ofsted methodology is not appropriate for the mix of experience and learning that takes place in many further education colleges. The CBI expresses doubts as to whether such a methodology can cope adequately with the different circumstances of different institutions and, in particular, the workplace. The British Chambers of Commerce, headed by Chris Humphries, who chairs the Government's National Skills Task Force, goes further and calls the proposal to give Ofsted responsibility for inspecting provision in further education colleges "an inappropriate decision". The evidence continues:
	"The idea that it is either feasible or valuable to inspect young learners' experience separately from that of the majority of adult learners in the same FE college or training provider programme and classroom is unsound and costly".
	The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate or the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. For example, adult learners bring a much greater diversity of experience of work, civic and domestic responsibility for their learning than do children. Many are most likely to participate in learning on a part-time basis or intermittently for short periods. They are much more likely to be constrained as to where and when they can study. They often contribute to the cost of learning from their own disposable income. Many participate voluntarily, with the exception of some in workplace training. That can mean high levels of motivation, but also a greater likelihood that they will cease to participate if they are unconvinced of the learning's relevance or of value for money. They may be unclear about their learning needs and about whether particular courses of action will help them to meet their desired goals. Usually they have wider-ranging and more complex motivations for studying than do the young. They may have unhappy or negative experiences from the schooling system.
	All those are good reasons why Ofsted should not look into the further education sector. Yet, the whole tenor of Clauses 66 to 68 makes the Chief Inspector of Schools in England the senior partner in the proposed joint inspections. The adult learning inspector's junior role immediately places work-based learning and vocational learning in colleges at a disadvantage. In our earlier debates on the Bill, the Government and the Minister said that they did not want to separate education from training. This provision does just that. It puts academic education on a pedestal and vocational education and learning at its feet.
	When we debated the earlier clauses of the Bill, the Minister claimed that the Government wanted to overcome that binary divide between academic and vocational education and training and to treat education and training holistically. But the sort of thinking set out in the Bill underlies the divide between the adult learning inspectorate and the role of the Chief Inspector of Schools.
	The FE21 group of colleges put it rather well in its evidence when it said:
	"We believe that the implication of Ofsted taking the lead in the inspection process is that providers, especially colleges, will be compelled into following the existing 16-19 model by the achievement oriented ethos of this inspection regime. This will be to the detriment of encouraging non-traditional learners into education because it does not appreciate the differences between the strategies for adult and young learners".
	It adds that in any case, the majority of learners in colleges are over the age of 19.
	We support the Government in their emphasis on providing high quality education and training for our young people and for the continuing education needs of our nation. We acknowledge the role that inspection plays in maintaining and raising the quality of such provision. But these proposals, as they stand, are a mess. The further education sector has developed a range of quality control mechanisms. They are already subject to inspections from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, from the Audit Commission and from the further education and funding inspectors who would, we assume, form the core of the adult learning inspectorate.
	But now, in addition to that, it is proposed to add Ofsted to the further education sector and to make it the senior partner, even though it has no experience of that field. Surely it is better to do as we suggest: to make a clean break between schools and the further education sector; leave Ofsted where it is, in the schools sector; and give ALI the prime responsibility for inspection in further education. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: It falls to me to resort to colloquial language to describe this part of the Bill. It really is a dog's breakfast. There is no other description for it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has been more elegant but equal in her criticism of the provisions in the Bill. Although the Association of Teachers and Lecturers welcomes some of the measures in the Bill, it is really welcoming the cultural approach which I described earlier of the FEFC inspections; namely, a process of self-evaluation. I believe that the Association of Teachers and Lecturers hopes that the ALI will subsume that approach to inspections and that the ALI will be given the responsibility for sixth-form inspections. There are so many options which one could go for if one is dismissing the proposals set out in the Bill.
	The provisions are extremely complex. They will cause great confusion. A school will be visited by Ofsted for the purposes of inspecting a school for 11 to 18 year-olds but it will be inspecting only the 11 to 16 age group part of the school. There will be a separate and distinct approach to inspecting the sixth forms in that school. Then arrangements will be made for inspecting 16 year-olds in the workplace. Different arrangements will apply to 16 to 19 year-olds in further education. The Bill proposes that the adult learning inspectorate will work together with Ofsted, with Ofsted in the lead. As I say, Ofsted has a very clear observational role.
	In her response to the previous amendment the noble Baroness attempted to explain how the joint system would work. She said that all the bodies would work happily together; that it would be extremely effective; that there would be no confusion whatever; and that it would all be very meaningful. But the noble Baroness did not say whether the observational approach of Ofsted will have to change and whether the ALI will either subsume the evaluative approach or whether the ALI, which will be subservient to Ofsted in joint inspections, will absorb the observational role. I believe it was hinted that there would be a bit of each. Ofsted does not take that approach at the moment so it would have to change quite dramatically the way it approaches an inspection.
	What does that mean for a school catering for 11 to 18 year-olds? The same inspectorate will inspect the school in the way in which it has traditionally inspected it until now, but then it will inspect the sixth form on a very different basis. It is a kind of mix and match of the two cultures. That simply is not good enough.
	I have not studied sufficiently carefully the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who is trying to bring some clarity to the way in which the inspections will take place. There is an argument for all education and training which takes place either in further education and/or at the workplace to be inspected by one inspectorate and in one way using one methodology. School-based inspections should be carried out as they have been hitherto.
	Certainly, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers would be making the case that there is an argument for adopting the approach which the FEFC has operated and which it assumes and believes that the ALI will adopt. If it would prefer an evaluative approach, that is a different argument. That argument needs to be put to government so that a judgment is made on it. I suspect that some research has been done which indicates which process of inspection is the most effective. Would schools benefit from a self-evaluative approach? I do not know. But the argument is not that we should have this mish-mash of inspections, with 16 year-olds, depending on where they are being educated, being inspected differently. Rather it is that there should be a change of culture in school inspections. It would be worth hearing a case for that. If there is a good case for it, what would be the Government's plans to change it?
	This is a complete mess. When I talk to people in the adult education world and in the 16-plus world in the school sector, they say that they would like some clarity. They, too, would like to see less confusion than there is set out in the Bill. As I said, some bodies, like the ATL, welcome an evaluative approach but that is not what is provided in this Bill because the Bill provides a mix of the two.
	It is incumbent on the Government, and certainly on the Minister, when she replies, to try to bring some clarity to this issue. That would mean changing the Bill as it stands. However, the Government seem to be reluctant to change any dot or comma in the Bill, so I am not hopeful that that will be the case. I believe that we are adopting a seriously messy approach to the inspection of 16-plus education. The rationale of the Bill is to bring coherence to 16-plus education. That will not be achieved by this method of inspection.

Lord Dearing: I did not intend to speak to this amendment but I do so having listened to the arguments of the noble Baroness. The present structure of the inspections as set out in Clause 68 is not really a partnership or joint inspection. It is an inspection under the direction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to a plan determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools producing a report offered by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and following a composition of an inspectorate determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.
	That particular approach puts the ALI in a totally subordinate position. Therefore, it is most unlikely to attract the quality of inspector required to be effective and will be at risk of losing that distinctive contribution which is needed for a community of learners which is adult rather than young, part-time rather than full-time, and possibly needing greater encouragement to engage in education and upskilling. After all, we are trying to create an adult learning society. If the Government are set on this particular approach, the result may be damaging to the Government's aspirations.
	Therefore, while I am minded to support the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in his amendment, I express great concern at the approach adopted both in the combination of the present clauses, and including, in particular, Clause 68.

Baroness Blackstone: We appear to be moving away from the amendments under discussion. I do not want to enter into debates which will come later. As I have said before, it is important in Committee that we do not have a Second Reading debate about a particular aspect of the Bill, such as inspection, but that we focus on the amendments tabled.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that our proposals are a mess and that they would be incoherent. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we have a rather incoherent system at present. The Government intend to create a much more coherent system than that established by her government.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am grateful to her for indicating that she will not be moving Amendments Nos. 182 and 187 which would give ALI a remit for inspecting school sixth forms. I am glad that she and her colleagues have realised that that would not make a great deal of sense.
	The amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness would fundamentally change the character of the Bill. Amendment No. 183 would exclude the inspection of colleges outside the FE sector, including specialist provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities which we have just discussed and about which her noble friend Lord Addington expressed concerns. The noble Baroness may want, on reflection, to acknowledge that that was not her intention.
	Amendment No. 184 extends the remit of the adult learning inspectorate so that it has sole responsibility for post-16 inspection other than sixth forms. As a consequence I understand that Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be restricted to only school sixth forms. I believe that is what the noble Baroness has in mind.
	Perhaps I may address the fundamental points of principle which the noble Baroness called the logic behind our approach. I hope that that will help, too, in answering some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will forgive me if I do not pick up on his interjection. I believe that that is much more relevant to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Haskel which we shall reach later.
	I turn to our own proposals which, despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are coherent. Our provisions will build on the best of the three existing inspection systems. I cannot understand why the noble Baroness finds that unacceptable.
	I pay tribute not just to Ofsted, which is well known for its work in raising standards in education, but also to the important work of the FEFC Inspectorate and the Training and Skills Council Inspectorate. They have done sterling work across the spectrum of post-16 provision, which we should acknowledge. We want to build on and draw on that sterling work in the new structures we are creating. Our proposals will combine the best traditions of the three existing inspectorates and produce a system far better than that we have at present.
	It is wrong to suggest that the two new inspectorates will be falling over each other. They will not; they will be working together. No single inspectorate could encompass the range and variety that has to be inspected in the whole of the post-16 provision of learning for both academic qualifications and, indeed, vocational skills.
	At Second Reading, and in the debate on the earlier amendment tonight, I explained that we shall have a common inspection framework. I believe that this will be a new, valuable and visionary document compatible with the quality improvement strategy at the centre of the work of the LSC. The collaboration of the two inspectorates--ALI and Ofsted--both using the common framework, will add considerable value. The new regime will also have rigour so that the inspectorates can take a penetrating look at standards across all streams of learning. Members of the Committee will appreciate that on standards generally there is considerable room for improvement.
	It may be helpful at this point if I say a little more about the common inspection framework. It will include a series of common principles for inspection, set out by the chief inspectors. I expect to see, for example, that inspection will give priority to judgments about teaching and that it will place emphasis on the standards achieved. It will also address continuous self-improvement and internal quality assurance.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I believe that internal quality assurance is a matter which FE colleges, sixth-form colleges, work-based training and school sixth forms should be able to embrace. There will also be principles relating to practical issues; for example, that joint inspection teams must reflect the expertise needed to inspect the range of provision, and that the balance of provision in the institution must be reflected within the inspection team. I refer, for example, to the proportion of inspectors from each inspectorate.
	There will also be a series of quality statements or judgments explaining what inspectors will be looking for in particular areas. The inspectorates also anticipate producing a handbook of practical arrangements to go alongside the statutory framework.
	Perhaps I may say to the Liberal Democrat Benches that the restriction of Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be a considerable mistake. The experience and rigour of Ofsted, building on its expertise in school sixth forms, is surely relevant to sixth-form colleges. The benefit of that rigour would be lost. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, supports the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and wants Ofsted to be removed from this work or whether she takes a somewhat different view. The noble Baroness shakes her head so I assume that she takes a different view from that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	Ofsted has brought together its considerable experience in a number of influential reports on effective sixth forms, modular A-levels and GNVQs. We have to remember that some 40 per cent of all students studying for A-levels and GNVQs are in the FE sector. So, there is a great deal of advantage to be gained from Ofsted being able to inspect across the two sectors in these important areas.
	For all those reasons, I should be reluctant to accept the amendments tabled in this group which restrict Ofsted's role in post-16 work. As I have said, drafting on the common framework is being done by the inspectorates. At this stage, the Government have no formal role. That must be right and in keeping with the tradition of the independence of the inspectorates. However, I hope that the consultation in spring will coincide with a related consultation on the quality strategy of the LSC. I accept that that document, and the common inspection framework, will need to be compatible and coherent.
	As regards the two consultations on the framework, in the spring we hope to have the one to which I have alluded. There will also be the statutory three-month consultation under the procedures set out in Clause 67. That can take place only when the Bill is enacted. I believe that that will give ample opportunity for those with an interest in this area to comment upon it. It will mean that the framework will also quickly become a familiar document--all providers will know what it contains and what to expect when they are inspected.
	The amendments that have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are substantial. However, in my view, the arguments against them are more substantial. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment, perhaps I may return to a few points. I begin with the criticism that, somehow or other, we were making Second Reading speeches. It was almost impossible to discuss these amendments without mentioning the inspection framework, because such amendments would disturb that framework. Therefore, I make no apologies in that respect. I certainly was not making a Second Reading speech. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand precisely what the consequences of acceptance of these amendments would be.
	The Minister referred to a very "incoherent" system that the Government have apparently inherited. Can the noble Baroness say, quite specifically, in what way Ofsted has failed, given the fact that it has been responsible thus far for inspecting sixth-form education as part of the inspection of schools as a whole? Can she also say in what way the FEFC is incapable--or, indeed, its successor, the ALI would be incapable--of inspecting the quality of the teaching and the learning, as well as the training and its effect on adult learning environments? I simply do not know.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised an important point; namely, that it is not possible to extend the remit of any one inspectorate body to inspect right across post-16 education simply because you cannot extend Ofsted's remit any further. The very valid point was made that Ofsted now has almost cradle to grave responsibilities in any event. Indeed, that starts from nursery education, baby minding and carers and will now also include all 16-plus education under the extension already encompassed within the Bill. Answers to such questions are important to the debate.

Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is opposed to Ofsted having a wider role. It is the Government's intention that it should and that it should begin with nursery education and playgroups, extending right through to the provision of further education. I believe that that will create a more integrated and better system of inspection.
	In implying that the present system is not terribly coherent, I was not in any way criticising Ofsted, the FEFC or the Training Standards Inspectorate. I am saying that the structure is poorly integrated. In effect, you have one group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in schools and a totally different group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in FE colleges. That is the what the Government are addressing: we want a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting 16 to 19 provision and a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting the specialist aspects of work-based training and adult education. They will use their respective expertise but work together in a team.
	Perhaps I may also mention something that I meant to pick up earlier. I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that schools would have separate inspections; in other words, that there would be a separate inspection of the sixth form from that applying to 11 to 16 provision. That will not be the case. Schools will have a single inspection right across the whole range of what they provide. For example, if we are talking about a school that provides for 11 to 18 year-olds, the inspection of the sixth form will take place at the same time as the inspection of the 11 to 16 aspect of its work. I hope that I have clarified that point.

Baroness Blatch: If that is the case and inspections will take place exactly as they do at present, the particular nature of such inspection will not change. Therefore, as I understand it from what the Minister has just said, a 16 year-old doing A-levels in school will be inspected in exactly the same way as hitherto. However, someone taking an A-level in an adult learning situation will be inspected differently by the successor to the FEFC inspectorate. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot argue coherence and uniformity on the one hand and then, on the other, argue that nothing will change in an 11 to 18 school.

Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that "nothing will change". The noble Baroness needs to listen to what I say. I said that such a school would not have a separate inspection. It would not be inspected one year as regards the sixth form and then be inspected at a totally different time regarding the 11 to 16 provision. Under the new common framework there may be some changes to the way in which Ofsted carries out its inspections. It will need to take into account the slightly different approach that has been used in the further education sector. That will be all to the benefit of everyone. As I said earlier, we shall benefit from the approaches used by the different inspectors in creating this new system. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her extended reply to the various points that have been raised. However, I am sure she will recognise that I am not convinced by what she said. It seems to me that the Minister fails to understand the point that we on this side of the Committee have been trying to get across; namely, the simplicity of having one set of inspections, led by one group, for a particular type of education provision.
	There is a very different ethos in the further education and adult education sector from that in schools. Yes, the Minister is quite right. By not moving Amendment No. 182 (and thereby removing Amendment No. 187 from this group) we have withdrawn the earlier suggestion that the adult learning inspectorate should have the right to go into sixth forms. I do not believe that that was a coherent idea. We now have a coherent set of inspections in the schools--indeed, Ofsted now rules from the cradle through to the end of schooling. But the way in which Ofsted looks at such things is very different from the way in which the further education world looks at them.
	As regards A-levels, I take the Minister's point that we want a coherence in terms of the standards that are applied. However, I return to the argument that I put before the Minister. The way in which inspections are carried out these days is to bring into one's team people with competence in different areas. In the adult learning inspectorate it is extremely likely that we shall have the same people inspecting A-level provision as we shall have inspecting school A-level provision. Quite frankly, it would make much more sense to have a coherent framework run by the adult learning inspectorate covering the whole of the further education sector, with Ofsted being restricted to the school sector. That is what we propose.
	I shall withdraw my amendment for the moment. However, I think it very likely that we shall return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, this annual order and the other standing in my name on the Order Paper are an important part of DSS business. The order increases most of the social security benefit rates from this April. Most national insurance and non-contributory benefits will increase by an RPI of 1.1 per cent. Most income-related benefits will increase in line with the Rossi index of 1.6 per cent.
	As is usual, the increases are based on the change to the retail prices index from September to September, with the increase for the income-related benefits adjusted to remove the element of housing costs. As Your Lordships know, housing costs for those on the income-related benefits are met separately through housing benefit and income support mortgage interest. The Rossi index most closely reflects the spending of these individuals.
	Last year our main focus was on helping people of working age move back into work by providing greater employment opportunities and introducing policies that ensured that work paid. This year we are building on our policies to provide real security for the most vulnerable in our society. We are particularly concerned about the levels of poverty and exclusion experienced by children and by pensioners. We recognise the importance of giving young children in the poorest families the best possible start in life so we have decided to equalise the rates of child personal allowances in the income related benefits. Families will now receive as much for a child under the age of 11 as they do for a child aged between 11 and 16.
	This will take place in two stages and the first stage was implemented last October. Full equalisation will take place from this April when the rate for children from birth to age 16 will increase to £26.60. This follows on from a substantial rise in the rate for children under 11 in November 1998 and means that between April 1998 and April 2000 the amount paid in respect of children under 11 will have risen in two years by over 50 per cent.
	Last year, in line with our commitment to fight child poverty, there was a significant increase in child benefit, and benefit for the eldest child was increased from £11.45 to £14.40. To allow the poorest families to gain fully from this substantial increase, the family premium in the income-related benefits was increased by the same amount.
	A further increase over and above normal RPI uprating will be made for the second year running taking the rate of child benefit to £15 for the eldest child, and £10 for the second and subsequent children. The family premium in the income related benefits will again be raised to reflect this.
	Our policies are proving effective. Measures in the previous two Budgets will lift some 800,000 children above half average income levels. However, to be truly effective in changing people's lives we need to ensure that we can help their parents move back into work. Poor opportunities and low expectations lead to poverty in later life. Therefore we also need to tackle those issues and I am sure that we shall debate them tomorrow.
	I turn now to the position of today's pensioners. This group is least able to improve their income through employment. Between 1979 and 1996-7 the incomes of the richest 20 per cent of single pensioners rose by 76 per cent. In comparison the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent rose by only 28 per cent in real terms. This difference is mainly due to the increase in occupational pensions and SERPS, with the poorest having least access to pensions other than the basic state pension and income support. We are determined to tackle the current levels of inequality and poverty among pensioners. Our strategy is twofold: first, to provide help for today's least well off pensioners; and, secondly, to make sure that people have a decent pension in the future.
	Despite the rise in national prosperity, the poorest l million single pensioners and the poorest 1 million couples have been left behind. Therefore we are targeting extra help on the 2 million pensioners who have lost out. All pensioners will benefit from other measures such as the fivefold increase in winter fuel payments, which have been extended to all households with someone over the age of 60.
	Later this year we shall introduce free TV licences for the older pensioners who tend to be among the poorest. In addition we have restored free eye tests to everyone over 60 and removed the burden of paying income tax from 200,000 pensioners. Now two-thirds of all pensioners pay no income tax at all. And a 10p starting rate will help many more. Under this Administration the least well-off older pensioner will gain over £500 a year. By the end of this Parliament an additional £5 billion will be spent on pensioners.
	This £5 billion also allows us to help the poorest pensioners who need most help. The minimum income guarantee will be increased in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. We are setting a decent base for pensioner incomes. By targeting our resources where they are most needed we shall boost the incomes of the least well-off to £78.45 for single pensioners (an increase of £8 since 1998-9) to £121.95 for couples (an increase of £12.60 since 1998-9) and, for the older pensioners, to £86.05 and £131.05 respectively for singles and couples (an increase of £8.50 and £13.15 respectively since 1998-9).
	Many people, including some in your Lordships' House, have requested that the earnings link be restored for the basic state pension. However, this would do nothing for the poorest pensioners on means tested benefits because they would lose their income related benefits pound for pound, and would be most advantageous to those individuals whose incomes have already risen dramatically. Uprating the basic pension by earnings would cost £7.5 billion by 2010. However, under that policy pensioners on means tested benefits would still see no gain. But they are already seeing the benefits of the minimum income guarantee. We will have given poorest pensioners at least £5 a week more in real terms since 1998. An earnings uprating of the basic pension would have given the poorest, on income-related benefits, precisely nothing. The guarantee sets a minimum income for pensioners of over £78 a week. Pensioners should not be worse off than this. We want to ensure that all those who are entitled will get it.
	Although the basic state pension is the foundation of the pensions system it has never been enough on its own. That is why the graduated pension scheme was introduced in 1961 followed by SERPS in 1978. But even those measures did not do enough because SERPS is earnings related. That is why we are changing it to the state second pension in a Bill which I hope will reach this House before Easter.
	To ensure a better income in retirement, people have always needed to save. That is reasonable. We want to make it easier to save than ever before. Low inflation levels protect the value of savings. We shall provide stakeholder pension schemes that are good value, flexible and secure. Through the state second pension we shall increase the help that the state gives to low earners with incomes under £9,500 a year, to carers and to disabled people with broken work records. We shall help them get a better pension. Someone earning £6,000 a year now would get £14 a week under SERPS. Under our proposals for the state second pension that person would get £54, not £14. That is £40 more and has huge implications for someone's standard of living in old age.
	Providing work opportunities remains the main way to tackle poverty. People cannot save if they do not have a wage. The action we are taking now on a whole array of initiatives will get more people into work, will reduce poverty now, and will help prevent them taking poverty from their working years into their old age. We have a strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion. We are determined to eradicate that in every instance for children, for people of working age and for pensioners. The uprating order, by providing price protection, ensures security and for vulnerable groups such as children and pensioners ensures even greater security. I therefore commend the orders to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the Minister's announcement of, and explanation of, the orders. I propose to respond taking the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000 together.
	First, I make it clear that we shall not vote against the orders because we do not want to stop the uprating of benefits. However, we are concerned that the 1.1 per cent rise, which amounts to 75 pence in the basic rate pension, is significantly less than the Minister's department's spending plans published in March 1999 which assumed a 1.3 per cent increase in the basic state pension from April 2000. We calculate that this difference amounts to a £90 million saving from pensioners. We should like to know what has happened to that sum. Is this a clear sign that the Government have decided to ignore once and for all their manifesto commitment to retain the basic state pension as the "foundation of pension provision"?
	The Government certainly appear to prefer to announce eye catching gimmicks such as the free television licence for a selected group of pensioners. Indeed, that was the only new benefit pensioners received in the previous so-called "pensioners' Budget" of November 1999. Then there is the universal winter fuel payment, another provision that has no statutory protection and could therefore be dropped at any time. In addition, actual delivery continues to be a problem. Over the 1997-98 winter it was almost summer before payments were received. This year we understand that the Government do not know precisely to whom it must be paid following the recent ruling in the European Court of Human Rights which decided that men and women are equally entitled to receive it. We are pleased that payments will be backdated to 1997 for those who are entitled. However, can the Minister say to whom and when this payment will be made?
	It is not only the delivery of the winter fuel payment that is causing concern. The breakdown of the national insurance computer system (NIRS2) has caused misery to thousands of pensioners who have not received their proper entitlement. In September 1999, one year after the Secretary of State first stated that the computer problem would be resolved in--I quote from a "Dear Colleague" letter dated 11th September 1998--"the next couple of weeks", only two thirds of cases affected had been identified.
	On 17th January 2000 the Minister of State in another place, the right honourable Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, stated that there are,
	"83,000 cases outstanding and we expect all to be settled this year".--[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/00; col. 569.]
	Can the Minister give a clear indication today of when this mess will be cleared up since upratings are of little significance or encouragement to all those still affected by this administrative incompetence.
	Returning to the new Labour pre-election manifesto, in addition to championing the basic state pension it also stated,
	"we believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation".
	How can the Minister reconcile this commitment with a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds and the abolition of the most popular savings vehicles of all time--namely, TESSAs and PEPs--such that now the amount of money that people can put away tax-free each year for their future prosperity, for their retirement, if they so wish, has been halved?
	In addition, with the abolition of dividend tax credits, 300,000 pensioners whose income is so low that they do not pay income tax will have to pay, on average, an extra £75 a year in tax.
	Further, in the 1999 Budget, having given the impression that pensioners would retain the married couples allowance, the small print revealed that those turning 65 after next April will not be able to claim the allowance and that this will cost them an extra £500 year in tax that they had neither expected nor planned for.
	It is also important to note that the Government have now abolished the allowance granted to widows aged 60 to 65 following their husband's death and simply replaced it by a payment which will only be available to widows under pensionable age.
	Even the disabled are having a raw deal now that the Government are means testing incapacity benefit for the first time. Individuals who have a modest pension will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit. This will discourage people on low incomes from saving while penalising those who have been able and prudent enough to save for their future. This change also attacks the contributory principle.
	It is true that, thanks to our policies when in government for encouraging investment and occupational pensions, more pensioners currently enjoy higher incomes and so are less dependent upon the basic rate pension. However, given the Government's erosion of pensioners' investments and occupational pension schemes, we are deeply concerned that the pendulum is beginning to swing in the other direction since it no longer pays to save and we will see a growing dependency upon the basic state provision--that is the basic rate pension--for the long term. To make matters worse, we on these Benches believe that the Government's stakeholder pension scheme will drive people out of existing occupational schemes and into stakeholding instead.
	In contrast, a crucial incentive to pensioners would be to raise the capital limits in order to match them more closely to current interest rates. The limits have not been increased since 1990. I now urge the Minister to respond to promises made in another place during previous uprating debates going back to 1998, and referred to by my honourable friend, the Member for Havant, in another place when these orders for 2000 were debated on 7th February. For example, he said:
	"In February 1998, the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington ... said: 'I do not dissent from the view that there are problems with capital and disregards. In our review of benefits and the general review of the welfare state, capital and disregards will have to be considered'".--[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/00; col. 35.]
	Moving to the substance of the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, our response to this extension of means tested benefits is that its practical effect is to act as a severe disincentive for saving into retirement for people on low incomes, thereby resulting in increased state dependency among pensioners. Given the minimum pension guarantee and the Government's pledge to raise it in line with earnings, some people who save, for example, in a stakeholder pension, could be better advised not to bother saving at all. Why does the Government seek at every turn to undermine those who are prudent and want to prepare to support themselves with private provision in retirement?
	We on these Benches believe in protecting pensioners' savings and increasing their incomes from funded pensions. Our fundamental objection to the Government's strategy is their undermining of pensioners' incomes by their stealth attacks on pension funds, coupled with a patent reluctance to do more than tinker with the system. Where is the genuine commitment to welfare reform that we heard so much about before the last election? These uprating orders to not provide pensioners and those genuinely in need with anything more than disappointment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the debate puts me in a little difficulty. By long tradition, this occasion has been used for a general discussion of the state of the social security system. However, I shall be doing that tomorrow.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry. It is not my fault.

Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not the Minister's fault, nor mine either. It is just one of those things. But since I am not the young lady named Bright, I do not intend to arrive on the previous night. I must therefore find a few other things to say.
	I thought that I might pay some attention to the general principles upon which uprating should be based. The Minister may remember that we on these Benches abandoned the principle of uprating in line with earnings a good while before her party did. I can remember an occasion in the days "BT"--"Before Tony"--when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to put my name to an amendment of his to change uprating so that it was in line with earnings. I told him very quietly that I would rather sit that one out. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, looked like a hurt spaniel. So we can see that there are difficulties in affording uprating in line with earnings.
	It also seems to us clear that if uprating is in line with prices and not with earnings, then there will be a steadily widening gap opening up between people on benefit and the rest of us. That must mean that, as resources allow, from time to time there must be upratings which go above prices, and occasionally well above prices.
	I wonder whether this might be regarded as such an occasion. I have read the report of the Government Actuary with some care. It is a highly encouraging report. There is a generally beneficent economic climate--or, at least, there has been--which is international as well as national. It owes a great deal to the success in overcoming the Far East crisis of 1998. There was a single year surplus of £1.5 billion and a balance in hand of £16 billion.
	The Minister may perfectly well say--she probably will--that benign economic conditions do not always last, but what encouraged me most in the Government Actuary's report was its concluding sentence:
	"However, even quite substantial alterations in economic conditions should not cause the balance in the fund to fall below the levels seen in some recent years".
	That is the kind of statement that actuaries do not make very often.
	It has presented the Minister with an opportunity not only for some uprating a bit above prices but also to review the pattern of the relationship between one benefit and another. Gaps open up in different places at different times, and it would have been worth taking the chance to review the way things have developed since 1988.
	I agree entirely with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the need to uprate pensions by more than the proverbial 75 pence. On Marie Antoinette principles, pensioners would find it difficult to use that to buy a piece of cake unless it was a rather poor quality cake.
	I take the Minister's points about winter fuel and free TV licenses. But will she tell me whether a provision exists anywhere in legislation or regulation whereby the benefits may be uprated in some future year? If it does, I am not aware of it.
	The Minister talked about the minimum income guarantee--MIG--which she regards with great enthusiasm. I shall be grateful if she will tell me whether she has discovered any secure means of delivery for the minimum income guarantee. How does she get the money to those who need it? Unless she can answer that point, the value of the minimum income guarantee is perhaps greater in the course of conducting a debate than in the course of feeding a pensioner. If the Minister has an answer to that, I should be pleased to hear it.
	The Minister talked about children. I welcome the increases, but I wonder whether the form of her statement that she had lifted 800,000 children above half the average earnings illustrates the danger of taking one single target for poverty, which is a great invitation to benefit those just below the target level--to float them off--while leaving those in much deeper poverty entirely alone. It is a danger of taking one single yardstick to measure a problem. One needs to consider also those in much deeper poverty.
	I wonder also whether the Minister might have done well to consider the relationship between single people and couples and that between the young and the old. She may remember signing an interesting Written Answer to me on 19th January, which dealt with the rates of income support as a percentage of average earnings. I concede at once that average earnings are not the same thing as average income and that income support pays out housing benefit. Nevertheless, some of those rates are quite striking. The income support level for single young people aged under 25 is 10.15 per cent of average earnings--not particularly generous. For single people over 25 it is a little better: 12.82 per cent of average earnings. Those rates are hardly princely.
	Furthermore, the tendency to hardship is exacerbated by the longstanding principle--at least, since 1988--that special hardship payments are not normally made available to single people. I have never understood at all why being single means that one is incapable of experiencing severe hardship. Hunger is just as painful and the ground is just as cold to sleep on. If the Minister has an answer to the question of why single people cannot obtain hardship payments, I should be glad to know what it is. That is a matter that she might have addressed.
	The differential between young people's and old people's rates of income support is a further matter that might have been addressed. It is an effect of percentage increases that if an equal percentage increase is given to two unequal sums, the differential widens. In terms of pounds as distinct from percentages, the difference between income support for people under and over the age of 25 has been widening slowly since 1988. In some year or other, something should have been done to prevent that gap from widening much more quickly. This year, with a surplus in hand, might have been a good year to do it.
	Finally--I am sure that I should have surprised the Minister a great deal more by not saying this than by saying it--I must, probably for the 20th or 30th time, express my deep regret that she has taken no advantage of the opportunity to uprate the capital limits on savings. Those have not been uprated in most cases since 1988, which means that the principle of a protected level of savings is itself in danger of coming so near to disappearing that it becomes nugatory. Someone with a good enough grasp of political history to remember the first Wilson administration will understand what I mean when I pronounce the words, "dog licences".

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have had a short, but, as usual, to-the-point debate, with some detailed questions. I shall do my best to answer the points raised. I have been scribbling away during the debate. If I have overlooked any points, I shall follow them up with correspondence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did a splendid attacking job, although I hope that she will accept that perhaps not all the attacks landed. But let us not worry about guerrilla warfare on these occasions. She asked about the 75p increase in the basic rate pension and the implications of a lower departmental spending plan. She asked also where the missing money--in the region of £90 million--had gone.
	The matter needs to be set in context. Because inflation and therefore RPI levels and unemployment are under control, the expected level of growth is less than half of that we inherited from the previous government's spending plans. As a result, the 75p increase properly reflects the RPI. Overall expenditure on the social security budget is down because of reduced unemployment and reduced economic inactivity among lone parents.
	The noble Baroness asked to whom and when winter fuel payments would be made. They will be paid to an extra 1.5 million people or 1 million couples at a cost of some £85 million. It is complicated because a number of the relevant men over the age of 60 are in work. That was not the intention behind the original fuel payments. We shall be making announcements later about those payments because we do not have the automatic figures that we would have had for pensioners, for whom the payments were originally intended. We shall be contacting people with the details and the method of payment. They do not need to contact us.
	The noble Baroness made some points about pension funds and the abolition of TESSAs and PEPs. She referred also to the attack on annuities and stealth, going back, I believe, to ACT. I understand why people complain that their pension fund has lower interest rates and now returns a lower annuity rate than they might have expected, but that must be understood in terms of three factors. First, one only receives a return of 5 per cent rather than 10 per cent compared to what one would have received in the 1980s. Secondly, inflation must be taken into account. Thirdly, we almost never hear about the resultant growth in the size of the fund, but it must be taken into account.
	Perhaps I may give an example. In 1990, someone on half the average earnings might have retired with a pension pot of £31,000, which would have brought him an income of £92 per week, equivalent to £119 per week at today's prices. By 1998, although annuity rates had fallen from around 15 per cent in 1990 to 9.5 per cent, someone with the same earnings and contribution patterns would have accumulated a fund of £97,000 because of the growth in the equity value of his pension pot, enough to provide an income of around £175 per week. That is a good 50 per cent--indeed, nearly 75 per cent--more than he would have received in 1990.
	Such a person can now expect the real value of his pension to be maintained because inflation has fallen below 2 per cent. The reason for that is the high returns achievable on equities during the 1990s, for which, indeed, the previous government must take the credit, which I should wish to pay. The point is that one needs to look not only at annuity rates falling, even though inflation has fallen even more, but also at what has happened to the growth of the equity value of the pension pot. As a result, pensioners are receiving a lower return, but on a much higher pension pot to meet a much lower level of inflation than they would have done in 1990. Therefore, they are much better off. Their expectations may be somewhat different, but those are the facts.
	The noble Baroness then moved on to incapacity benefit and referred to some of the issues that were raised when we debated the Bill last summer. There may just be a fundamental difference between us. Incapacity benefit, with which the noble Baroness's government replaced invalidity benefit, was not designed to be a top-up to an early retirement pension. It was meant to be an earnings replacement benefit for those who were struck down in their working life and needed an earnings replacement benefit which was more generous than the ordinary unemployment benefit. That was the purpose of it. It became instead, on the one hand, a replacement for unemployment benefit for those who had no recent connection with the labour market and, on the other, a top-up for pensions. Our reforms were designed to bring it back to its original intent.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the Minister will not encourage us to resume arguments on which we have spent a good deal of time already.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am doing my honourable best to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness. Had she not raised invalidity benefit and what she regards as the inappropriate response of government, I would not now be seeking to respond to her points. If I am guilty of anything, it is of attempting to answer the noble Baroness's question.
	Finally, the noble Baroness raised, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a point about capital limits. I take the point entirely that they have not been raised since 1990. I wish that that point had occurred to the Benches opposite--the government at the time--in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and even in the Budget of 1997, when they could have tackled the problem which they now draw to our attention as lying so long in neglect. We are committed to raising those capital limits as resources allow. We have reviewed them, and so on. But as and when will be determined not by the Department of Social Security but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that he judges appropriate.
	I turn now to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He conceded that the Liberal Democrat position has always been that old age pensions should rise not in line with earnings but with prices, and he accepts, as I do, that that presents us with a problem. What happens is that, as average earnings increase, although pensioners do not fall behind in real terms, nonetheless there is widening inequality. As earnings rise higher, there is, by definition, a wider stretch of incomes. That is true and it is certainly true of pensioners. We have seen pensioner incomes overall increase by around 68 per cent--incomes in the country as a whole by around 30 per cent--so that pensioners on average have done much better than the rest of the country.
	However, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that there is a particular problem for poorer pensioners. The bottom two deciles, who for the most part are single widows over the age of 75 with no access to occupational pension schemes and not much access to SERPS because they were not themselves in the labour market, have fallen behind. That is why--the noble Earl is right to press us on this point--we are putting so much effort into the minimum income guarantee. We hope and believe that that is a short-term problem in the sense that now there are as many women in the labour market as men so they will be coming forward in the future as a cohort with their own pensions, to float them off those bottom deciles. We have a temporary problem while existing pensioners--mainly older single women and widowed women--have no access to other than state benefits. That is why the minimum income guarantee is important.
	The noble Earl asked about the secure delivery of MIG. We are working on that. We are working on automatic delivery and we are working on the national campaign. We hope to make statements fairly quickly.
	The noble Earl's final point was about the average earnings of young people and income support as a percentage of income of those in work. I was muttering to my colleagues on these Benches "10.1 per cent". I knew where that point was going to come from. The noble Earl was right to say that those figures exclude housing benefit, which in many cases effectively more than doubles the income. But, if taken after housing costs--it is perfectly proper to take it after housing costs--I would draw to the noble Earl's attention this point. I know that we are probably rehearsing tomorrow's debate. There are wide differences between the replacement ratio of income support or JSA to earnings for young single people compared with families with children.
	The noble Earl will accept that the figures for families with children are different from those of single people. What matters is not just the level of benefit income but the length of time someone spends on that benefit income. It is the persistence of poverty that scars rather than any one snapshot point in time. I would remind the noble Earl--I am sure that he does not need reminding from me--that two-thirds of men on JSA are off JSA within six months. In other words, being on JSA or income support at those levels is fortunately a temporary phenomenon for most people. The people who remain--that is where poverty lingers--are those of working age who are lone parents, their children and of course the poorest pensioners whom we have already mentioned.
	There is of course the severe hardship scheme. I would again seek the noble Earl's help in publicising it because, to my knowledge, well over 80 per cent of all claims going in for severe hardship payment are successful. Therefore, it is a decent scheme. It is perhaps not as fully used as it ought to be. Whether it is the exceptional scheme, the severe hardship scheme or the hardship scheme--there are three different schemes for different benefits--all have a very high ratio of success to application. If the noble Earl can help us to encourage people to apply for those, he will be doing them a service.
	I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have already spoken to it.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.53 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.36 to 8.53 p.m.]

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

House again in Committee on Clause 50.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 186:
	Page 20, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 188.
	Education and training are the remit of higher education, not further education. Therefore, it is my view that teacher education falls outside the scope of the Bill. The Secretary of State should not be able to use the subsequent regulations, which I understand is the plan, to extend inspection to areas that are not properly within the scope of the Bill. I do not know what the Minister will be able to say in order to discount my assumptions in my reading of the Bill.
	Furthermore, the adult learning inspectorate should not be able to inspect within an LEA sixth form, and schools should not be subject to two different inspection bodies. We have already debated at length the way in which schools would be subject to inspections.
	In response to a previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about a single inspection of a school. She said that Ofsted would continue as now, but would, as I understood her, inspect sixth forms differently. The inspection cannot be the same, given the noble Baroness's explanation that there has to be coherence between the inspection of 16-plus young people in sixth forms and 16-plus young people in FE taking similar courses. In that case, the nature of the inspection of sixth forms by Ofsted would be different from the inspection that Ofsted would do at the same time--the noble Baroness's point was that the inspections would be simultaneous--for 11 to 16 year-old pupils, unless the nature of that inspection is also going to change, consistent with the inspection of 16-plus schoolchildren. In that case, the whole nature of inspection in schools will change. It is important for schools to know that.
	The paragraph in Clause 50 which I suggest should be deleted refers to,
	"such other education or training (which may, in particular, include training of or for teachers or lecturers) as may be prescribed by regulations".
	It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain the reference to "other education"--because the provision refers only to training for teachers or lecturers.
	Clause 51(5) states that,
	"The Chief Inspector is to have such other functions in connection with education and training within the Inspectorate's remit, including functions with respect to the training of teachers, lecturers and others".
	The clause refers to the functions of the inspectorate and the chief inspector, and a similar reference is included in the inspector's remit in Clause 50.
	There are two issues here. One is that the provisions extend the confusion already referred to. The second is the whole issue of encroaching now, not on the school sector, but on the higher education sector. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We do not support the noble Baroness on this amendment. My reading of the clause is that it relates to in-service training on the part of teachers and lecturers. It is extremely important that we endorse the basic principle that all teachers and lecturers need to go on training. Having been in a university where the assumption was that one basically taught oneself, I think it is extremely important to recognise that training needs to continue throughout one's life.

Lord Bach: I shall do my best to answer the points raised in the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to remove an important power from the Bill; namely, to extend the remit of the adult learning inspectorate through regulations.
	We agreed that the Bill's provisions generally exclude higher education, but the scope of the Bill does allow minor miscellaneous provisions relating to higher education. The Bill's scope will not, therefore, exclude the use of this power, if needed, to cover the training of teachers if that is what the Government decide in due course.
	We described the reasons for seeking such a power in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We indicated that the power at Clause 50(1)(e) is designed to allow minor additions to the principal remit to ensure that the expertise of the adult learning inspectorate can apply to other relevant areas of education and training as provision develops over time. It is impractical to have a full list of these types of education and training on the face of the Bill, but the regulation-making power will allow the Secretary of State to add to the remit if that proves appropriate. That may be the case, for example, because of the fast-changing nature of post-16 education and training, particularly with the growth of "virtual" or distance learning; and with provision being made increasingly in new, non-traditional locations.
	The remit may also need to be extended because of the possibility of partnership with new types of provider. Clause 50(1)(e) already mentions the possibility of using this power to prescribe the training of FE teachers. We see this as a possibility, but it will be sensible to determine the extent to which ALI will be involved in new areas only when ALI is established and able to demonstrate its capacity.
	The regulations made by means of the power will represent only comparatively minor additions to ALI's remit. This provision is analogous to the power to confer supplementary functions on the LSC as described in Clause 18(4), which we debated the other day. As with that provision and its precedent in the 1992 Act, the negative procedure is appropriate in this case.
	The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was completely satisfied with my department's memorandum. It commented that,
	"The comprehensive nature of the department's memorandum and its sensitive appreciation and application of the criteria to govern the control of delegated legislation has enabled [the Committee's] report to be shorter than might have been the case".
	It saw no reason to draw to the attention of the House the Government's proposed use of secondary legislation, nor their proposals for parliamentary scrutiny through the negative procedure.
	The noble Baroness may have thought that the Government have a hidden agenda for this regulation-making power. I can assure her that that is not so. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that the Government have a hidden agenda; the matter appears fairly openly on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord has answered my concerns about the Bill by referring to procedure. I do not criticise the procedure. If it is the Government's intention to inspect teacher training and/or education the provisions appear to be a perfectly proper way to do it. Regulations which are subject to the negative procedure are entirely in order, and I have no quarrel with the procedure. It is not the job of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to concern itself with how the Government intend to use the power as long as the process by which they use it is set out properly, as it is.
	My concern is linked with a point raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The noble Baroness understood the provision to refer to formal and informal training, including in-service training, undertaken by teachers as part of professional development. My understanding, based on the noble Lord's response, is that the provision is concerned with teacher training and education. If that is what it is and the Government have it in mind to extend the powers to areas which include this one--therefore, it is just one of the activities to be covered--this is a substantial matter. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether that is what he really means.

Lord Bach: If the noble Baroness presses me for a specific example, I refer to prison education. The FEFC and TSC already inspect prisons on behalf of the Home Office. That is a specific example where ALI's work and expertise may be appropriate. I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether it is sensible to provide on the face of the Bill that ALI can do this work if required to do so.

Baroness Blatch: It may please the noble Lord to know that I believe it to be entirely sensible to extend ALI's remit to the quality of education in prisons, which is a subject close to my heart. I have no quarrel with that. I look at the words on the page,
	"(which may, in particular, include training of or for teachers or lecturers)".
	Do the Government intend to inspect the
	"training of or for teachers or lecturers";
	in other words, the training colleges for teachers within the compass of higher education? Is it intended that when an individual is under training to become a teacher and, for the purposes of inspection, comes within higher education, the remit of ALI is extended and that function is taken away from the higher education inspection system?

Lord Bach: The best I can do is to repeat what I have already said. The remit may be extended. Clause 50(1)(e) already mentions the possibility of using this power to prescribe the training of further education teachers. I stress that we see this as a possibility, but it will be sensible to determine the extent to which ALI will be involved in new areas only once ALI is established and able to demonstrate its capacity. That is about as far as I can take the matter this evening.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that response as far as it goes, but the provision does not refer to further education teachers but simply to teachers. Does it mean only further education teachers or lecturers, in which case why does it not say so?

Lord Bach: It is intended to mean all teachers in the post-16 age group.

Baroness Blatch: It does not say that either. The provision now reads,
	"training of or for teachers or lecturers".
	If it refers to teachers or lecturers of 16-plus students that is rather different. If one is talking about those who are trained to teach in schools then they are teachers of 11 to 16 year-olds, not just 16-plus. For example, when teachers are under training for secondary education, is it intended under this Bill that they should be inspected by ALI?

Lord Bach: I am reminded that we are talking here of further education teachers. I have now repeated myself two or three times.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord may have repeated himself. In the spirit of Pepper v. Hart, it will be on record that the Government mean further education. If that is so, the Government should promise to table an amendment to make that absolutely clear beyond a peradventure. If it is not clear perhaps I should table an amendment myself. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 186A:
	Page 20, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) facilities for providing information, advice or guidance about education or training or connected matters secured by the Council under section 12(5) of this Act or by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 for persons over the age of 19").

Lord Addington: The amendment concentrates on adult career and course guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used the expression "a dog's breakfast". If one is charitable one could use the term "guidance" as being "the longest salad bar in the world". Everyone seems to be undertaking work on adult guidance and course guidance.
	It is more difficult to give guidance to adults because they may not have the same structure of career goals. The amendment aims to bring adults within the remit of the ALI. The initials "ALI" make me think of a distinguished boxer rather than an inspectorate!
	The Government give money for certain aspects of this area. However, the more I read regarding the amendment the more confused I became. Surely the inspectorate oversees the quality of advice given and therefore we may achieve a more coherent system. Adults will always have more diverse personal circumstances, employment histories and needs. They may be looking for occasional work, part-time work career choices, career breaks and so on. It will always be a more difficult area. Some careers companies choose whether they will take on adults as part of their remit.
	I believe that the amendment is a step forward in clarifying the position. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Lord explained, Amendment No. 186A would place the inspection of information, advice and guidance about education and training within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. We intend, however, that the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance provision should be carried out by the independent Accreditation Board that was set up last year by the Guidance Council with support from my department. So there is an existing body with specialist expertise available to carry out this work.
	Providers of guidance in receipt of public funds will be required to comply with the Guidance Council's quality standards, which command wide support among practitioners. The role of the Accreditation Board, in return for a fee from individual providers, will be to assess whether those providers do indeed comply with the relevant standards.
	There are several reasons why it is most appropriate to secure the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance for adults through the route I have mentioned. First, the delivery of information, advice and guidance for adults is extremely diffuse. It is delivered by an extremely wide range of organisations, including community and voluntary organisations and libraries as well as employers. So it is quite unlike much of the other provision that is being inspected. The plans we have been discussing with the Guidance Council are based on the assumption that up to 1,500 provider organisations will need to be accredited between now and the end of 2001-02.
	We need a light-touch accreditation regime of the kind that is already in operation. Placing the relevant responsibility with ALI would increase significantly the number of organisations with which the inspectorate would have to deal, for little obvious gain. Secondly, and most importantly in responding to the noble Lord, information, advice and guidance is a specialist activity. Many of those providing information, advice and guidance are not learning providers. They operate in a quite different context.
	Thirdly, the arrangements with the Guidance Council that I have described are already in place and are now established. Placing responsibility for inspecting that provision with ALI would delay the implementation of a good, high quality regime for this area. I do not believe that that would be in the interests of clients.
	Following that explanation, which I hope has been helpful, perhaps I may urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment.

Lord Addington: There is no real disagreement that there is a problem. The Government believe that the independent Accreditation Board set up by the Guidance Council is the correct way forward.
	I should have preferred a more central and holistic approach which seeks to bring together the many outside bodies into one unit. The Minister referred to libraries. That makes me think of the numerous leaflets that are handed out in place of a proper guidance service.
	However, the Minister meets me at least half way in our thinking. I shall consider whether at a later stage we can improve upon the provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
	Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clause 51 [Functions of the Inspectorate and Chief Inspector]:
	[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
	Clause 51 agreed to.
	Clause 52 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 189:
	After Clause 52, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:AREA INSPECTIONS BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR
	(" .--(1) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning may, on his own initiative, conduct an inspection of--
	(a) the quality and availability of a specified description of education or training, in a specified area of England, for persons who are aged 16 or over;
	(b) the standards achieved by those receiving that education or training; and
	(c) whether the financial resources made available to those providing that education and training are managed efficiently and used in a way which provides value for money.
	(2) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning must carry out such an inspection if asked to do so by the Secretary of State.
	(3) If the Learning and Skills Council or a local education authority has applied financial resources in respect of education or training which is being inspected under this section, the inspection may extend to considering the manner in which the Council or that authority has applied those resources and whether they have been applied in a way which provides value for money.
	(4) The education or training that may be made the subject of an area inspection is any education or training within--
	(a) the Adult Learning Inspectorate's remit; or
	(b) the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England.
	(5) If, in connection with an area inspection, the Chief Inspector asks Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England for advice on a matter relating to education or training within his remit, he must give such advice as he considers likely to be appropriate for the purposes of the inspection.
	(6) A person providing education or training which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with any information reasonably asked for by him in connection with the inspection.
	(7) Any local education authority whose area, or part of whose area, is within the area which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with such information as the Chief Inspector may reasonably ask for in connection with the inspection.
	(8) "Area inspection" means an inspection under this section.").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 and to the Motion that Clauses 62 to 64 shall stand part of the Bill.
	The purpose of these amendments is to place on the Chief Inspector of Adult Education a responsibility, analogous to that given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, to initiate and undertake area inspections which relate to his remit of inspecting all further and adult education institutions in England.
	Our reasons for putting forward these amendments are similar to those which I have already discussed in relation to amendments that we have tabled for extending the adult learning inspectorate's remit to all further and adult education institutions outside the school environment.
	It may be obvious that the learners, the teachers and the planning and delivery of learning opportunities for adults all differ significantly from schools. The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education and Funding Inspectorate and the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. Ofsted's experience of inspecting post-16 education outside schools is limited and it has hitherto shown itself to have little interest in developing its existing remit to inspect adult education.
	The 1992 Further and Higher Education Act specified that the Chief Inspector,
	"shall have a general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided in local education authority institutions; the educational standards achieved in such institutions, and whether the financial resources made available to such institutions are managed efficiently".
	This is not a role to which Ofsted has attached much priority. Between 1992 and 1998, Ofsted conducted just 12 inspections of local authority adult and community education. During 1998 and 1999, Her Majesty's Inspectorate carried out full inspections of just three LEA adult services. Her Majesty's Inspectorate also inspected access to adult learning in 13 local authorities and family learning in 28 authorities. This contrasts with 4,520 Section 10 inspections in that year: 3,508 of primary schools, 704 of secondary, 239 of special and 69 of pupil referral units.
	In contrast, in its first year of operation, the Trading Standards Council carried out 300 inspections of work-based training between May 1998 and February 1999 in 14 different occupational areas ranging across agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, retailing and health care.
	It is for these reasons that these amendments seek to give the new adult learning inspectorate powers to conduct area inspections, so as properly to ensure that, whatever the level of public funding provided by the learning and skills council, area inspections can be carried out to investigate the coherence of provision within the area. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: In speaking to these amendments, I underline the importance of Clauses 62 to 64, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has indicated she will oppose. Instead of Ofsted being responsible for leading area inspections of 16 to 18 provision, we should have broadly analogous provisions making the adult learning inspectorate responsible for area inspection of provision for all ages. I am grateful for the opportunity to reiterate our position on this rather important issue.
	Area inspections represent an important new policy. The focus of our concern is the very pressing need to raise the standard of 16 to 18 provision in certain parts of the country. These are mostly, but not exclusively, urban communities where both participation in full-time education and, I am afraid to say, attainment are particularly low. The inspections will make a major contribution to raising the standard and relevance of provision for young people who must have access to high quality education and training if they are to obtain jobs and remain employable.
	It is perhaps worth explaining further that these inspections will provide the means by which we can judge whether the entitlement that we have given to young people between the ages of 16 to 19 is being discharged properly. If young people are being let down in a particular area, if resources are being misapplied, we need to instigate action on their behalf.
	The same issues do not arise in post-19 learning. As the noble Baroness probably knows, our intention is to expand greatly the number of adults in learning and certainly to improve the quality of learning that is available. But, where there is no entitlement to education and training, we do not have quite the same requirement for inspections such as those intended in the clauses.
	In replying to earlier amendments, I explained how essential it is for Ofsted to be involved in post-16 work. Let there be no mistake: Ofsted already makes a crucial contribution to the inspection of 16 to 18 education. It has inspected every school with a sixth form. Using this extensive inspection database, it has published influential reports on the characteristics of effective sixth forms and on level 3 qualifications; and it is one of the most potent levers we have for raising standards.
	That is why Clauses 62 to 64 are constructed on the principle that Ofsted will lead area inspections, albeit with the assistance of the adult learning inspectorate. I cannot accept a series of amendments which would give this vital work to the adult learning inspectorate alone, to the exclusion of Ofsted. The logic is absolutely clear: Ofsted not only has the most extensive expertise in this area, it has the majority of the 16 to 18 remit under the Bill's provisions. Ofsted should lead. It would be ludicrous to cut Ofsted out of the equation or to make its role a very minor one.
	Area inspections are needed to ensure that local providers meet local labour market needs; to see that we get best value for money from the substantial public funding being invested; and that where standards need to be raised, there is a sound basis for intervention.
	The role of Ofsted is essential for the same reasons that we need Ofsted to take on the 16 to 18 remit. At the risk of repeating arguments, let me once again stress the existing crucial contribution it makes to the inspection of 16 to 18 school education. It knows what to look for and it will do the bulk of the work. I have every confidence that Ofsted, ably assisted by ALI, will make a massive difference to the educational and eventually economic well-being of these disadvantaged areas.
	We shall need the provisions in Clause 63 in full. There must be a single report made by Ofsted, as it is the lead inspectorate, but the report will of course reflect the views of ALI where it has made a contribution to the area inspection. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has argued against the principle that we need single reports to be handled in this way--only on the question of which inspectorate should lead. For the reasons I have given, the duty to make the report needs to fall to Ofsted.
	It is also self-evident that we need action plans after area inspections. At present, there is no obligation for anything to happen once an area report is received. The clause will make sure that the funding bodies--the LSC and the LEAs--in consultation with schools, colleges, employers and all other relevant bodies concerned with education and training in the area, take matters forward. The issue of ensuring good 16 to 18 provision is far too important to allow the possibility of inertia.
	Those are the arguments why Clauses 62, 63 and 64 must stand part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and agree that those clauses should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about her amendment, perhaps I may press the Minister further to define what the Government see to be the problem. I understand the Bill to bring coherence to 16-plus education. Much has been said about raising standards, not only among those not attaining an education, but also among those who could do better. No one can argue with that mission. However, it would be interesting to know what evidence and survey work the Government have done to let the world know that standards are not as good as they should be and must be improved. What in the Bill is destined to raise those standards? Perhaps the Government will put that information in the Library.
	I have always had enormous admiration for the colleges of further education. One of their predominant tasks is to take up those young people who, for all kinds of reasons--health, poor family support, or the chemistry has not been right, for one reason or another, between the individual and pupils in the school--have not gained what they should have done from school between the ages of 11 to 16, or even between the ages of 11 to 18 years.
	Therefore, the colleges of further education have had to take up those people in addition to those who genuinely move out of school-based education into further education as a stepping-stone either into the field of work or into higher education. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what has been failing there and also what is the evidence for that. I would like the noble Baroness to tell us what in this Bill is destined to raise those standards.
	Thirdly, as regards the world of work and the national training organisations, seen from the outside, as providers they do a pretty good job. Therefore, one wonders what there is in this Bill that will raise those standards in training for the world of work. We know that there are employers who take their responsibilities towards young people in training very seriously. There are others who leave them to get on and hope that they will pick up the skills and training that they need on the way.
	I am at a loss to know what the noble Baroness defines as the problem which underpins the need for this Bill and then link it to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to bring some coherence to area inspections. Can the noble Baroness say why it is, from that purely observational culture of inspection, Ofsted should be given the remit to carry out all the area inspections which take into account all these various forms of education, training and skills training?
	These questions are not playing politics with the Bill, but arise as a result of genuine bemusement about the definition of the problem and the specific pointer in this Bill to tell us how this Bill will make life different. What will make the institutions behave differently? Can the noble Baroness say in what the way these different inspection cultures are going to make sense of what is happening for 16 to 19 year-olds?

Baroness Blackstone: I am not going back into the issue of different cultures. We have been through that. I will do my best to answer the new questions that the noble Baroness has raised. She asked about the evidence that school sixth forms are inadequate. I suggest that she looks at the recent annual report of the Chief Inspector, Mr Chris Woodhead. It sets out very clearly how he perceives the situation. One of the great problems is that there are enormously wide variations in the quality of what is provided in sixth forms from the very best, which is superb, to the totally inadequate.
	The noble Baroness asked about further education. I was given what I believe to be a slightly odd definition of the intake of the further education college sector. She suggested that it is those who did not get what they hoped from their schools and those needing a stepping-stone into the world of work. That is a rather strange definition of its composition.

Baroness Blatch: I included also those going through further education into higher education. There are people who are making up lost time in school education; those moving through further education into higher education and those going through that sector into the world of work.

Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Baroness will let me finish, I could then comment on the third point that she made. The further education sector is filled with students who have made a choice, not because they are students whom the schools have failed, or going into further education as the route to the world of work or because they are returning in order to go into higher education. They are people who sometimes live in areas where are there are only schools for the 11 to 16 year-olds in any event and there is a tertiary solution to the provision of education for 16 to 19 year-olds.
	However, I should like to move away from what is perhaps a red herring and turn to our proposals to address the problems and then improve the quality and standards of further education. Unfortunately, retention figures in some FE colleges are inadequate; attainment figures are poor and overall standards need to be improved. In some areas, we have a mix of provision, some of which is in good sixth forms, some in bad sixth forms, some in FE colleges and some in sixth-form colleges. The whole purpose of the area inspections--which, adding to my earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, address 16 to 19 provision rather than adult provision--is to seek to come up with better solutions for those areas where the provision is poor.
	The inspections will examine those areas where outputs are poor and devise solutions for raising standards; making recommendations for more collaboration across the different sectors or possibly making recommendations for mergers where that would provide better value for money. More choice should be made available to individual students within an institution.
	I should like to make a final point. The national training organisations to which the noble Baroness referred are not providers. They do not provide education and training. They are central bodies offering advice based on employers' needs in a particular sector to the actual providers in FE colleges and training organisations. That is a different matter and not relevant to this group of clauses and the proposed amendments.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply to the amendments. We do not dispute the need for area inspections; nor do we dispute that at present there is far too much variation in the quality of provision across areas and that improvements need to be made. However, we are concerned that in such area inspections, Ofsted will always take the lead, as specified in Clauses 62 to 64. However, when looking at the country as a whole, it is clear that in many areas school sixth forms play only a minor part in the provision of post-16 education. For that reason, we feel that the chief inspector of adult learning should be given at least an equal role to that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. That is the burden of these amendments. The chief inspector of adult learning should be put on a par with the Chief Inspector of Schools and should be able to call on the schools inspector to provide advice and guidance in relation to school sixth forms when necessary.
	I say again that we do not dispute the need for a team effort here. However, under the provisions of Clauses 62 to 64, there is no doubt that the chief inspector of adult learning will play second fiddle to the Chief Inspector of Schools. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but we may want to return to this on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
	Clause 53 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Right of entry and offences]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 192:
	Page 22, line 24, leave out paragraph (b) and insert--
	("(b) a right of entry to premises used in connection with the provisions of that training and development;").

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 192, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 193. I return here to a debate we have had on a previous occasion on rights of entry to premises where there is a suspicion that resources are being abused or something else may be amiss. Those rights of entry and the definition of offences are the subject matter of Clause 54.
	I am not principally concerned here about the importance of ensuring that public resources are protected and that the interests of taxpayers are paramount, but I am concerned about rights of entry to the premises of a person; namely, to a teacher's or lecturer's own home. In other words, I am concerned about the home of the teacher or lecturer who is providing that education--not the premises on which the education takes place--and about the right of entry to premises of the person who provides the education and training used in connection with that provision.
	Clause 54(2)(c) deals with a "right to inspect" and extends to taking copies of,
	"any records kept by that person, and any other documents containing information relating to the education or training, which the inspector requires for the purposes".
	Subsection (3) goes on to deal with,
	"The right to inspect records conferred by subsection (2)(c)",
	to which I have just referred, and
	"includes the right to have access to, and to inspect and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been in use in connection with the records in question".
	I am trying to separate two things: first, the rightful pursuit of wrong-doing; and, secondly, the personal privacy of the individual person--the teacher and/or lecturer--who provides the education. It may be that I am missing something here, but I am reading the words on the page and I have read the Explanatory Notes. I am concerned about what appears to be a very wide power.
	In addition, if someone has committed an offence and a right of entry is forced, which one has to assume might in some circumstances be so, my understanding is that that is done by police with a warrant and not by just anyone; that is, by a member of the inspectorate or someone whom the inspectorate determines should do it. Therefore, it would be most helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is the extent of this power, what protection there is for the individual teacher and/or lecturer, and what right anyone has to hack into personal equipment which may or may not have been used for purposes relating to the education provision.
	I am concerned that the only way that one can find out whether or not a piece of equipment has been used is by hacking into it, thereby discovering either that there is nothing on it or that something on it has been secreted away, indicating that the person has been up to no good. Therefore, I am concerned about including a mechanism which will deal with the protection of the individual teacher or lecturer and the circumstances under which that will take place. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: These amendments relate to access to premises and to computers. The noble Baroness argues that we are giving the adult learning inspectorate unreasonable powers. We do not believe that to be true. As she said, this is "round two" of the debate that took place last Tuesday on access to computers. She will recall that I agreed to write to her about that following the Committee stage and I shall, of course, do so.
	My first point is fairly fundamental. There is good precedent for the provisions which she seeks to amend or to delete. The wording in Clause 54(2) and (3) follows very closely the provisions of Sections 2(8) and 42(a) of the School Inspections Act 1996. I am not making a cheap point and I do not believe that it answers all that the noble Baroness said by pointing out that that was, of course, a Bill passed by a government of which she was a leading member. In making that point I am trying only to say that in effect we are replicating here the powers which previously have been given to Ofsted in respect of schools of all types. We are not doing anything new.
	There is no dispute between the noble Baroness and myself as regards the principle that all inspectors must have reasonable access to provision to carry out their duties. The issues raised by the noble Baroness relate to how the powers will be exercised. The answer is that they will be exercised reasonably by the inspectorate, as happens now. There is no question of breaking and entering into private property, which was the expression used by the noble Baroness last week. Clause 54 gives a right of access only at reasonable times and for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. So breaking in at three in the morning is not an option. Indeed, if ALI were to act unreasonably in the exercise of any of its statutory powers, it would be susceptible to review by the courts. Let there be no doubt. ALI has a right of entry at reasonable times in order to carry out its statutory functions. In doing so, it must behave reasonably.
	The current TEC licence or contract requires providers to permit the Training Standards Council, as the representative of the Secretary of State, to examine documents and records; to provide oral or written explanations and all other reasonable assistance at any reasonable time. The FEFC inspection handbook similarly sets out clearly the expectation that FEFC inspectors will have access to records, marked work, registers, teaching materials and so on wherever they are held; and that there will be meetings on the premises between inspectors, managers and governors.
	The point is that reasonable access is an integral part of inspection. Providers are used to it. We have no reason to doubt that ALI will use the powers in Clause 54 with circumspection and reasonably for the purposes of inspection. If there are any doubts whatever about this, I remind Members of the Committee that the Secretary of State may use his powers under Clause 51(6) to advise ALI on that point.
	I turn to the details. Amendment No. 192 would not give ALI the right to enter the premises of a provider of further education which were not used directly in the provision of education. For example, the effect would be that where a college maintains its records on a site separate from but perhaps adjacent to its classrooms, ALI would not have a right of entry to that site. It could not be sure of access to those records. I do not know whether that is what the noble Baroness had in mind or intended but that would be the consequence if her amendment were passed.
	The extent of the provision in Clause 54(2) is necessary because it allows ALI access to education and training provision which is sub-contracted. The premises where education and training takes place may not be owned by the provider. It is reasonable also for inspectors not only to be able to see education and training taking place, in whatever setting, but also to visit and talk to the provider at head office about that education and training. Clause 54(2)(b) secures that for the avoidance of all doubt. The amendment does not do that.
	The person providing that education or training in Clause 54 is not the individual teacher or lecturer in a college. Otherwise, there would be dozens, even hundreds, of providers running an institution. The provider would be the college.
	As regards, Amendment No. 193, it is obviously necessary and reasonable for the inspectorate to have access to records including, for example, records of student attendance. That information may be stored electronically. Because of the increasing likelihood that people will undertake distance learning, the inspectorate will need access to such relevant materials however they are stored. Of course it may be possible and easy to download the material into an accessible format; or it may not. But whichever way it is done the inspectorate really must have access.
	This is not a draconian power. Obviously in most cases--the vast majority of cases--the inspectors will have easy and simple access to the material they need to see. Indeed, we are not aware of any problems or disputes in that area during inspections by the FEFC Training Standards Council, which has the same powers as are intended in the Bill. There is no hidden agenda here. We are not planning to invite the inspectorates to conduct forensic audit or detailed fraud investigations. ALI is not the KGB or even the Stasi. I am sure it will want to ensure at all times that providers do not face unnecessary burdens. I hope that having heard my comments, which are now on the record, the noble Baroness will consider some of her fears unfounded and withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am left with one or two questions. First, the Minister said that ALI would have to act reasonably. The word "reasonable" refers to the times of day, not the action. Subsection (2) provides:
	"has, at all reasonable times".
	The Minister rightly referred to the fact that breaking and entering would not be done in the middle of the night but at reasonable times of the day. I totally accept that. However, there is not an obligation to act reasonably or to have reasonable access. The access would not necessarily be reasonable. If ALI really wanted to get in, it would do so. It has the power here to force entry, if absolutely necessary.
	Secondly, I have no argument with the Minister about the importance of the inspectorate receiving all the information and data it needs in order to carry out its job and function of being the protector of public moneys and of the people who provide those public moneys; that is, the public. The difficulty I have, which may be due to my lack of understanding, is that the right of entry is not simply, as in (a),
	"a right of entry to premises on which the education or training being inspected is provided",
	but a right of entry to the premises of the person providing the education. If I am a lecturer, and I am the person providing the education, my premises are my home. Is the Minister stating that the premises of the person are what I think they are, or does this have some other connotation? I simply do not understand.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the noble Baroness. I believe this is another occasion where the drafting is extremely sloppy. I am delighted to have the Minister's assurance that ALI will not only enter such premises only at a reasonable time but will do so in a reasonable way. Nevertheless, if it is for the purpose of carrying out its functions, that should be stated on the face of Bill rather than the provision being left vague and sweeping.

Lord Bach: I shall do my best to reply to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. There has recently been much reference in this Chamber to the term "reasonableness". The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know that in public law a body with a statutory function must always act reasonably. If it does not, it is susceptible to judicial review and is in danger of being subject to court proceedings.
	The person in this context is a legal person; that is, the college. The term is not intended to cover individual natural persons who work for the college. I hope those two points satisfy the understandable concerns raised by the noble Baronesses.

Baroness Blatch: No, I am afraid they do not. Subsection 2(a) refers to the college premises. It refers to:
	"a right of entry to premises on which the education or training being inspected is provided".
	That relates to the institution where the education takes place: the college, the workplace or wherever the education takes place. In addition to the right of entry to the college premises, subsection (2)(b) refers to the right of entry to the premises of the person providing the education. That can have only one meaning. If I am the lecturer and there is a right of entry, in statute, to the premises of the person providing the education, if the person means the college, that right is subsumed in subsection (2)(a). I simply do not understand the meaning of the wording in (b).

Lord Bach: Perhaps I may give the example I gave when addressing the Committee earlier. The effect of the amendment would be that, where a college maintains its records on a site separate from but perhaps adjacent to its classrooms, ALI would not have a right of entry to that site. We need to ensure that ALI has a right to enter a site which may not be used directly in the provision of education but where its records are maintained. That is why subsection (2)(b) is necessary.

Baroness Blatch: In that case, perhaps I may suggest that the wording should be,
	"premises other than that on which the education is directly provided but which are related to the provision of education".
	When the subsection refers to,
	"a right of entry to premises of the person providing that education",
	there is only one connotation that one can put on it. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is saying that there may well be information and data stored in an area that is not directly used for the provision of education, but which is, nevertheless, related to the provision of education. Therefore, the reference ought to be to premises other than those used directly for the provision of education but which hold information and data related to the provision of education. The paragraph should not speak of,
	"entry to the premises of the person providing that education".
	I believe that to be sloppy wording. I hope that the Minister will agree that it needs to be reconsidered.

Lord Bach: For once, I have to say that I disagree with the noble Baroness. I think that the wording is fairly clear and I cannot agree to look at it again on this occasion.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 56.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
	Clause 57 [The extended remit]:
	[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
	Clause 57 agreed to.
	Clause 58 agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Inspection of further education institutions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have already spelt out in some detail why on these Benches we consider it ill advised to extend the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England to include institutions in the further and continuing education sector. I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have already given.
	We are of the view that the experience of education and training in this sector differs markedly from school-based experience. The experience of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England is wholly school based. His remit within that sector is already wide. Clause 59 would give Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England the residual (or "mopping up") responsibility of inspecting any institution in the further education sector which did not fall wholly within the responsibilities of the adult learning inspectorate.
	Under our proposals, ALI's responsibilities would be widened to include all further and adult education establishments. Therefore, the residual role is, by definition, that of ALI rather than that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. Clause 59 is therefore, in our eyes, redundant and should not stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone: This clause places a duty on Her Majesty's chief inspector to secure the inspection of institutions within the FE sector, except where the responsibility is solely within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. There are also provisions for reports of such inspections and for the writing and publication of action plans by providers, where an inspection report has been produced, which are analogous to those applying to ALI under Clause 51.
	I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, opposes the clause: it runs counter to her alternative proposals, which were debated earlier, that ALI should be the only post-16 inspectorate. But that amendment was withdrawn and I am a little surprised that the arguments are being reopened. For the avoidance of doubt, let me again explain briefly why this clause must stand part of the Bill.
	I have argued that two inspectorates will be better than one to cover the vast range of post-16 provision; that the common framework will add value by providing clear principles for the new regime, allowing all providers to know what the inspectorates are looking for; and that co-operation and collaboration will bring additional benefits.
	Ofsted is integral to our proposals. As I have already said, it has a vast wealth of relevant experience in 16 to 18 provision through its work in school sixth forms. It would be wasteful and, indeed, irresponsible, to ignore that experience: the database of inspection evidence from every school; the way in which those data have been distilled into influential reports on what makes sixth-form provision effective; the reports on modular A-levels, and so on. All that expertise would go to waste.
	Finally, Ofsted has substantial influence on standards in schools. It can have the same influence across the new remit set out in Clause 59. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her opposition to the clause.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Minister is right in remarking that the debate on whether Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill should really have taken place on the first group of amendments that I moved this evening. In that sense, I accept that we have already discussed the issues. As I mentioned before, we may well return to them on Report. For the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 agreed to.
	Clauses 60 to 67 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Joint inspections]:

Lord Haskel: moved Amendment No. 196:
	Page 29, line 9, after ("England") insert (", where the majority of the students attending the institution are aged under 19; or
	(b) the Inspectorate, where the majority of the students attending the institution are aged over 19,").

Lord Haskel: At Second Reading, the Minister spoke about the overlapping responsibilities of the two inspection regimes; that for 13 to 18 year-olds and that for those over 19. Indeed, we have had a lot more discussion on that subject this evening. The Minister told us that the adult learning inspectorate will be responsible for the inspection of adult work-based training and adult provision in FE colleges and that Ofsted will be responsible for other inspections.
	As we have heard, there will be joint inspections of FE colleges and at work-based training where both adults and young learners are being trained. However, there must be a leading inspection body. It seems that there will be some turf wars, in particular, at the FE colleges, where both inspection teams may apply. Other noble Lords have referred to the possible difficulties.
	The purpose of the amendment is to try to be helpful over such a possible conflict. It is reasonable for the relevant inspectorate to be determined by whichever is the largest group of learners to be inspected; Ofsted where the majority are under 18, and the adult learning inspectorate where the majority are over 18.
	My amendment will relieve teachers at FE colleges of having to prepare for two inspections. The Minister will be well aware of the amount of effort that goes into preparing for inspections. For a start, there will be only one lot of paperwork. My proposal will be more efficient and effective in raising standards of preparation at FE colleges and in building a working relationship with the inspectorate. In that way, the Government can avoid the risk of the two inspection regimes having unequal status and so avoid the turf wars. After all, there are two different cultures to inspect: the part-time adult students and the full-time young learners. Each inspectorate has something to contribute and so they should be equal, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said earlier. I hope that the Government find the suggestion helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Dearing: I rise to speak in broad support of the amendment. I have been involved in education for a number of years and throughout that period I have been concerned that we have had two cultures: the culture of what I describe as academic education and the culture of vocational--applied--learning. There has been a tendency for each to engage in disparagement of the other, to be proud of its own culture and not to profit from what the other has to offer. It is in pursuance of that feeling that in one report in which I was engaged I recommended to the previous government that the body I chaired--the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority--should merge with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, so that the two cultures could learn from each other to the benefit of students. That recommendation was accepted and there is now one body comprehending both segments of learning. I was also engaged in a report in higher education, which was concerned with developing a unity and a coherence throughout the whole field of learning. Therefore, contrary to what others have argued, I see positive advantage in drawing on the expertise of both inspectorates--HMI-Ofsted and the FE Inspectorate. Each can profit by working with the other.
	It was only because of my concerns about the specific provisions of Clause 68 that I spoke on the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In contradistinction to Clauses 66 and 67, where the Bill proposes that the two heads of the inspection regimes should collaborate in working out an approach, under Clause 68, without qualification, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is put in the lead. It is for him to direct the inspection; it is for him to make a plan; it is for him, under the draft regulations, to determine how many from each inspectorate should be engaged; it is for him to make the report. I wonder why the Government should have concluded that the adult learning inspectorate should be placed in such a subordinate position when it is, I presume, the repository of the greatest experience and expertise of inspection in FE colleges.
	It might be that one thought that the FE Inspectorate has not established the reputation--the well deserved reputation--of Ofsted for forthright, hard and effective inspections. Yet when I looked at the last annual report of the FE Inspectorate I did not find that it was a soft, punch-pulling report. Indeed, had the head of the FE Inspectorate the same remarkable talents of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to capture public attention and to catch the headlines, a remarkable critical headline could have been derived from his last report. Having said that 11 per cent of colleges did not have effective leadership, the report went on to say that,
	"we do not have a sufficient number of effective principals if the management of one in nine colleges (11%) is unsatisfactory".
	As I read that, he was saying plainly that 50 principals were not up to their job. That is tough talk.
	I do not see evidence in the report that the FE Inspectorate is a soft number. I am therefore concerned that there should, in this clause, have been a decision to put Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools unequivocally in the lead in every aspect of the inspection.
	I invite the Government to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has proposed, leadership according to where the majority of the students are. I understand that in further education there are 4 million students, of whom 3 million are adult and 1 million are young people. That suggests that there might be scope in relation to the needs of pupils for the FE inspectorate to be in the lead.
	The Government may consider that suggestion over-adventurous. They may be prepared to consider importing the principle that they have adopted in the two preceding clauses; namely, that there should be joint leadership of the inspection. Is that impossible? I cannot see why. For example, it is proposed in the draft regulations that the chief inspector must reflect the collective judgments of the inspectors who have conducted the joint inspection. If it is a requirement to reflect the judgment of the inspection team, which is a collective one, I cannot see a problem in the report not being that of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools but a joint report by the two inspectorates.
	I wonder whether the Government feel it essential, in advance of any actual experience of joint inspection--which, as I have argued, has much to commend it, bringing the experience of two cultures to bear--I wonder whether they feel it imperative, to enshrine so much of the detail of the arrangements in the main statute rather than in regulation. Are the Government prepared to consider at least--so as not to demean the standing of the adult learning inspectorate and thereby discourage first-rate people from applying to be its members (no one likes to be cast permanently in a subordinate role in one's career)--that the reports should be joint reports, and that the composition of the team should reflect the balance of the students in the institution?
	While I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I suggest to the Government that, if that provision is too much, there are lesser proposals that could be offered. I invite the Government to consider whether, on Report, they would see merit in moving from their present position.

Baroness Blatch: There was a chief education officer in Cambridgeshire, when community education was first being piloted, who used to sit around the table with worthy people who used to talk stratospherically about education, ideas, and piloting this, and piloting that. Every now and again, he used to say, "What about the children?"--and brought everyone back to discussing what the whole thing was about.
	I understand that this provision ought fundamentally to be about the quality of the teaching and learning of the students who are passing through the system, whether they are attending a school or college, or training in the workplace. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is material to one of the real issues; namely, the practical delivery. We can all use fine words about what we should like to see, how we should like people to work together, and how co-operation is better than being at odds with each other. But we are talking about two very separate cultures; and the way in which they interact practically on the ground is very important. The question I ask myself is: what about the institutions and the impact of what is happening on the students passing through them?
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, relates to preparation for inspection. It is a very real issue in schools. It has been said by the chief inspector, and with some force, that many schools over-prepare for inspection. After all, the inspector is coming to make judgments about the quality of the teaching and learning in a school and to form a view about the outputs of that effort. Often, for very good reason, teachers are earnest and anxious to do the best and to show off their schools in the best possible light. But in order to prepare for the inspection, they overdo it. I have heard descriptions of vast numbers of laundry baskets lined up in halls filled with documents which the inspectorate team may want to see. The tradition of FEFC, which one presupposes ALI will follow, is very different. Preparation for that kind of inspection is also very different. It takes place over a long period and involves more visits to look at the systems in place and to test their robustness. If they are to merge in a practical sense so that individual inspectors work together in a single team within the same framework, something somewhere must change. Not only the inspectors and the framework within which they operate must change, but the way in which the very people in the institutions prepare for inspections must change. I do not believe that thought has been given to that. Certainly, there is no suggestion that there are to be regulations to that effect.
	There are many in the school system--I referred earlier to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers--who look over the fence and see that the grass is greener on the other side. They rather like the adult approach to inspection and the idea of testing on the basis of self-evaluation. But if the Government are to put that system in place, it is important to spell out the way in which it is to work in practice. Schools, colleges and workplaces must change in order to prepare for what may be a very different form of inspection. One cannot simply put together the observational and evaluative-type cultures and expect nothing to change. If there is to be change, the nature of that change needs to be spelt out; the dots and commas must be in place. Because these institutions are very hard pressed because of the other demands on their time, not least their core task of teaching and training the young people who pass through their doors, the Government must say rather more than they have said up to now.

Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness has returned to points that she made earlier in relation to previous groups of amendments. I repeat what I have already said. This will be spelt out not by the Government but by the chief inspectors in the consultation documents which will be available to the noble Baroness and many others for comment when the time comes. My noble friend Lord Haskel, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, set out his arguments in a helpful way, and I am grateful to him for providing me with an opportunity to explain these provisions. I am particularly glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, at least for our overall approach which is to have a common framework in which two inspectors work together. That is extremely helpful at this point.
	I turn to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel. I begin by clearing up an important preliminary point. There should never be two inspections of an FE college, one by ALI and one by Ofsted. Every college, like every school, will have a single inspection that involves one team, usually comprising some ALI, and some Ofsted, inspectors. There will be a single report. In a few sixth-form colleges with no adults, there will be a sole inspection by Ofsted; and in a few adult colleges with no 16 to 18 year-olds, there will be a sole inspection by ALI.
	In supporting the amendment, noble Lords have argued that in the case of joint inspections, the lead inspectorate should be determined according to whether 16 to 18 year-olds or adults are in the majority. I can see the logic of that. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. If we rely on a headcount of students above and below the age of 19, we shall have a completely misleading guide to the work of the two inspectorates. Nearly all 16 year-olds in FE are full-time students. In contrast, nearly all adults are part time, typically taking courses which amount to one-fifth, perhaps one-quarter, or occasionally one-third, of a full-time course. In terms of "full-time equivalent student numbers"--what we might term "volume of provision"--the split between the two inspectorates is approximately equal.
	I shall illustrate the problem with some practical examples. In terms of headcount, there are only 87 colleges--one fifth of the sector--with more 16-18 year-olds than adults. Virtually all these are sixth form colleges. Yet noble Lords may be surprised to note that not all sixth form colleges have such a majority. Over 20 in fact have more adults than young people. And many others have nearly as many adults as 16-18 year-olds.
	The explanation is that many sixth form colleges have considerable numbers of part-time adult evening class students, perhaps studying for as little as two hours a week. This may be completely worthy and desirable community education, but I should be very surprised if any sixth form college regarded this as its main mission. And in terms of hours of taught provision it will of course be less than the A-level and advanced GNVQ work in the sixth form college. It would be completely wrong, therefore, for the ALI to direct inspections in these circumstances, although I would expect an Ofsted-led team to have good support from the ALI in looking at the quality of the evening class provision to which I have just referred.
	These arguments are not confined to sixth form colleges. In many general FE colleges, tertiary colleges and agricultural colleges there will be a similar pattern of large numbers of 16-18 year-olds on full-time courses; and numerically more part-time adults. But the volume--and volume is important here--of 16-18 provision will be greater in at least half of all colleges. Even where the numerical balance seems overwhelmingly in favour of adults, there are caveats. For example, at Bracknell and Wokingham College there are nearly 12,000 adult students, compared with only 1,100 16-18 year-olds. But the number of 16-18 year-olds is still greater than in very many sixth form colleges. It is therefore right that Ofsted will have a very substantial role in the inspection of these colleges. These are practical illustrations of why the amendment would not be acceptable, but I wish also to make a few points of general principle.
	First, the Government do not intend to prescribe responsibility by formula, either on the face of the Bill or in subsequent regulations. Let us imagine for a moment a college where the provision is almost equally divided between adults and young people. It would make no difference whether we were using headcounts, full time equivalents or any other formulation. Let us imagine that a few weeks before the inspection, it is discovered that the proportion of adults to young people is 51 per cent to 49 per cent. The ALI therefore prepares to direct the inspection. But at the time of inspection, because of new enrolments, the proportion may have changed to 49 per cent-51 per cent the other way. The ALI no longer has the vires to lead, and the law is brought into disrepute.
	A numerical formula, however constructed, simply would not work. And because of the wide variation in character in colleges, alternatives such as giving Ofsted the lead for sixth form colleges and the ALI the lead for general FE colleges would not be workable. A lot of general FE colleges--tertiary colleges in particular--have a major focus on 16-18 provision. Only in the case of minimal overlap of remits--for example, in the adult residential colleges where there would be at most a tiny handful of 16-18 year-olds, should the ALI take the sole lead.
	The Government want to avoid formulaic prescription, and to give the two chief inspectors a good deal of operational freedom, so that the complex planning for joint inspections in FE colleges can be done on a case by case basis. The general principle of having inspection teams composed in a way which broadly reflects the volume of provision is a good one, and I intend that this shall be enshrined either in the regulations made under Clause 68 or in the common inspection framework. In this way, using a harmonised approach with multi-disciplinary teams working collectively, joint inspections will be highly effective operations and, I hope, potent levers, which is something that we all want, to raise standards.
	Nonetheless, in a joint inspection process there has to be some clarity about who is in the lead. That is why I have some reservations about what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has recommended. I believe that colleges will expect such clarity. If we did not set out clearly in the Bill who should lead, we could properly be accused of ducking the issue. The Government have chosen Ofsted. I do not in any way detract from the experience and skills of the other two inspectorates. However, unlike the ALI, Ofsted is already fully established with a proven track record of improving standards.
	I have spoken at some length because this amendment raises important issues. For both practical reasons and those of principle, the Government have set out a clear policy. I recognise that the choice we had to make was a difficult one. However, I believe that it is a clear solution which will be acceptable. Reluctantly, therefore, I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Haskel's amendment and I hope that he will not press it.

Baroness Seccombe: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about the position of the 11 to 16 schools where adults sit in the same classrooms as young people under 16 and where there is a high proportion of adult learning in the evenings.

Baroness Blackstone: The adult learning that goes on in the evenings is simply a matter of schools letting their premises to adult and community provision. That kind of letting of premises is not relevant, except in that the adult learning inspectorate should, of course, inspect the adult community provision that happens to be in schools, as in a church hall, as in an FE college or anywhere else. With regard to schools that have a very small number of adults sitting in, normally at the top end of schools, Ofsted will continue to inspect that provision because the numbers would be very small and they will presumably be undertaking courses of the same kind as those being undertaken by school pupils.

Lord Haskel: I thank the noble Lords who have spoken to my amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for the benefit of his experience and the way in which he made his point.
	I believe that it is very important to make clear to the colleges what my noble friend has just said, because it was an FE college that prompted me to put down this amendment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take whatever steps she can to ensure that the FE colleges understand what the regime will be, how Ofsted will take the lead, yet how Ofsted and the ALI will hopefully be on an equal footing, and how the system of joint inspections will work. That matter was not understood by the people who asked me to table this amendment. I thank my noble friend for the explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.

Lord Boston of Faversham: I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 197 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.

Clause 71 [The Extended Remit of the Chief Inspector for Wales]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 197:
	Page 30, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Roberts of Conwy: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198.
	My first purpose is to find out what the Government have in mind for the single inspectorate proposed for Wales. It makes sense to combine the administration of the adult learning inspectorate with the schools inspectorate in Wales, as proposed in this and subsequent clauses, provided, of course, that those who carry out the inspections are qualified in their field for the tasks that they are to perform. It is quite clear that, to inspect the training provided by an employer in the workplace, different inspectors will be needed from those required for sixth forms or the Careers Service. Having said that, I hope there will be a cross-fertilisation of ideas and that the inspectorate as a whole will not become too fragmented or excessively sectionalised.
	Perhaps I may return to the detail of the amendments. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are virtually identical, apart from the word "contemplating" in line 39. Those two paragraphs could have been combined without too much difficulty. Are the providers given financial support in paragraph (a) of the same genre as those to whom financial support may be given in paragraph (b)? What lies behind these subsections, which could so easily have been rolled into one?
	We could speculate ad nauseam, but it would be easier to listen to the Minister's reply. I should be grateful if she could also tell us what additions are expected in the staffing of the inspectorate to undertake the additional tasks consequent upon the extended remit. Out of kindness, I draw her attention to subsection (2)(b), which does not make much sense to me and I am sure will not make much sense to anyone else either. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the extension of the existing remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales to this type of education. We share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, about what precisely is meant by the additional paragraph (b). I hope that we shall receive enlightenment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Driving up standards and quality are key factors in the Bill and I know that the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, will agree that that is the correct approach. It is also right for us to ensure that prospective providers of education are up to the quality mark that we would expect to see. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate for Estyn to be given the power to conduct preliminary inspections of prospective providers where publicly funded education is being considered. That may answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It is to cover the eventuality of funding provision, then inspecting and finding that the provider is not of the appropriate quality. The preliminary inspections will provide the CETW and the National Assembly with reassurance that public funds are not being directed towards prospective providers whose offerings are inadequate.
	The noble Lord asked about staffing levels. That will be a matter for the chief inspector following an imminent review. That is essential to establish the appropriate levels and the level of individual skills and experience. I hope that, with that explanation and the fact that the provision was inserted at the request of the National Assembly, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining what the Government have in mind. I quite understand that some authority is required for a preliminary inspection of a prospective provider. But my criticism of the drafting is still valid in that both these paragraphs could have been rolled into one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
	Clause 71 agreed to.
	Clauses 72 to 77 agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Inspections of education and training provided under 1973 Act arrangements]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 199:
	Page 34, line 22, leave out (", at the request of the Secretary of State or the Adult Learning Inspectorate,").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: At first sight it appears odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment--I am sure he is meant here, although it could be any Secretary of State or indeed the adult learning inspectorate for England--should request an inspection in Wales. But I believe that the clause is intended to enable some current ongoing work to continue. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
	I personally welcome such co-operation across the border. We could all learn, including inspectors, from each other. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for education and training under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. That includes, for example, the New Deal for the unemployed aged 18 to 24. The adult learning inspectorate will have a duty to inspect such provision in both England and Wales.
	In Wales, Estyn has no remit to conduct inspection of provisions such as the New Deal. If we had left it at that the adult learning inspectorate would become involved in the inspection of all provision under the New Deal across Wales and Estyn would be excluded from such inspection. That would cause confusion among providers and make poor use of resources. Therefore, our policy is to ask Estyn, where it agrees, to inspect New Deal provision in Wales. Estyn will of course be fully competent to conduct such inspection. With that reassurance I feel fairly confident that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I thank the Minister for her explanation, which is clearly intended to benefit the inspectorate in Wales. I certainly welcome that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 78 agreed to.
	Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 200:
	After Clause 83, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PRELIMINARY TRANSFERS: FEFC FOR ENGLAND
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of the property, rights and liabilities of the Further Education Funding Council for England to any of the listed transferees.
	(2) The listed transferees are--
	(a) the Secretary of State;
	(b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;
	(c) the Adult Learning Inspectorate.
	(3) A scheme under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
	(4) A scheme under this section comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
	(5) When a scheme under this section comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the property, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
	(6) The day specified by a scheme under this section for the scheme to come into force must fall before the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.").

Baroness Blackstone: In moving this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 202, 245, 250 and 258. I recognise that these are significant government amendments to bring forward, but the scale of the changes that we are making put a premium on ensuring that effective transition arrangements are in place. We have been working closely with partner organisations at national, regional and local level both before and after the introduction of the Bill to identify and address the key transition issues. These amendments, which reflect those discussions, create the essential legal framework for a smooth transition.
	Since publishing the White Paper we have put a major effort into managing the transition process effectively. The detailed transition plan we published alongside the White Paper was a sign of our commitment to doing so in line with "Modernising Government" principles. It sets out what needs to be done, by whom and by when. It was produced jointly with the DTI and sets out clearly who within each department is leading on each aspect of the plan.
	Since that plan was published, we have continued to develop and refine it with the support of a wide range of partners at national, regional and local level. We have set up a range of mechanisms to ensure that we learn from the experience and expertise of a wide range of organisations, including TECs, local government, careers services and the FEFC. I am very grateful to all of those bodies and other organisations for the positive and constructive help that they have given.
	We published an updated version of our transition plan in November and we shall continue to review it in the light of experience. This process has also helped us to identify the necessary legal provisions we need to make which are now contained in these amendments. We recognise that the scale of the changes we are making requires a significant financial investment in the transition process. The work we have done with partner organisations has also helped us to develop a clearer assessment of the transition costs.
	We currently estimate that the transition costs of establishing the LSC and ALI over the next two years will be between £60 and £65 million. These costs include the development of new IT systems, premises and, of course, a significant investment in staff training and development. There are also likely to be some restructuring costs in the DfEE and government offices.
	It is too early to be precise about TEC transition costs. The position depends greatly on decisions yet to be made on LSC premises and the location of small business services franchises. It also depends on how many staff transfer under TUPE to the LSC and other successor bodies.
	In the coming year we shall be making available £25 million to meet the start-up costs of the LSC. This up-front investment will ensure that the LSC gets off to the best possible start. We shall meet the remaining costs from the savings we shall make and from reprioritising other work. This investment in transition will quickly be repaid by the savings we intend to make. In Committee last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, questioned the level of savings. To me it is self-evident that the changes will create a system more efficient than that which has gone before. We are moving from 73 organisations developing their own funding systems to one. We are moving from over 80 sets of premises to fewer than 50. Furthermore, we are moving from duplication and overlap to a single and more coherent approach.
	We are confident that at least £50 million-worth of savings will be made each year and we shall invest those savings in the quality of learning. The budgets we set for the learning and skills council will reflect this.
	The noble Baroness also raised a number of specific issues about the transition for TECs, which we promised to address today. We recognise that this is a challenging period for TECs and we have been extremely impressed by the commitment and hard work of TEC board members and staff both in managing difficult transition issues and in helping us to develop the new arrangements. The fact that TEC performance continues to hold up well is a great credit to them.
	Many TECs have evolved over time into complex organisations with a wide variety of functions. Some have merged with chambers of commerce, others have a Business Link as part of the same company, while others have developed wider commercial activities. We are therefore working with each TEC to agree a detailed transition plan which will take into account both the nature of the organisation and local circumstances.
	We recognise that one of the important issues for TEC staff is to get a clear understanding of their position in respect of TUPE. Depending on the nature of the TEC, current functions may well be transferring to the LSC, the Employment Service, a new small business service franchise, or another successor body. We have made it clear that we expect many TEC staff to transfer under TUPE to the LSC, to the Employment Service, or to other bodies to which functions are to be transferred. We are working with TECs, the FEFC, the Employment Service and other partner organisations to map out a detailed process for handling transfers and we shall publish that next month. Given the complexity of TEC structures and their status as independent companies, we believe that the detailed position on TUPE can be resolved only on a TEC-by-TEC basis.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the position in respect of TEC assets. Under our contract with TECs, certain assets purchased out of funds provided by the Secretary of State must be returned to him on termination of the contract. It is our intention that such assets, if appropriate, should be made available to the LSC for the continued benefit of the local community. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to do so.
	Before I explain each of the amendments in turn, first, I shall say a few words about their general purpose. They contain essential provisions to ensure that the assets, rights and liabilities of the two funding councils can be transferred as appropriate to the successor bodies. They will also allow the Secretary of State to make available other assets, such as those returned to him by TECs, which I have just mentioned, and the Training Standards Council to the LSC and ALI. They also ensure that the LSC can make the necessary preparatory steps before it assumes its full functions. The amendments do not cover LEA assets. Until this legislation comes into force, LEAs continue to have a duty to secure adequate facilities for further education outside the scope of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Under this Bill, LEAs will continue to make an important contribution to community and adult education.
	The Government are also guaranteeing that each LEA will receive funding in the first two years of the LSC's operation at a level comparable with their current spend provided they produce and implement suitable plans which at least maintain their current spend. The effect of these arrangements is that LEAs will need to ensure that the necessary assets continue to be available within their areas to provide the facilities which local people need. Therefore, there is no need to cover LEA assets in the Bill.
	I now turn to the amendments themselves. Clause 83 provides that on the day that the FEFC is dissolved, its property, rights and liabilities will transfer to the LSC. In practice, the situation will be more complex as some assets which are linked with the FEFC's current inspection work are likely to be transferred to the new adult learning inspectorate or Ofsted. Therefore, Amendment No. 200 provides for transfer schemes so that the Secretary of State may make any necessary transfers of FEFC assets, rights and liabilities to the department, Ofsted and ALI in advance of the dissolution date. Any assets, rights and liabilities of the FEFC which are not covered by such a scheme will then transfer on the date of dissolution to the LSC by virtue of the provisions of Clause 83.
	As I mentioned a moment ago, under the terms of the licence agreement between each TEC and the Secretary of State, any property and assets which were issued to the TEC or funded under the licence are to be returned to the Secretary of State on termination of the licence. Amendment No. 202 provides for schemes whereby the Secretary of State can transfer any such former assets, rights and liabilities to the appropriate body once they have been returned to him by TECs or by the Training Standards Council. It will also allow for any necessary residual transfers between the LSC, ALI and Ofsted. The right of the Secretary of State to transfer new liabilities to the LSC is limited to three years after the appointed date.
	As we set out in our Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the LSC will be established before it takes on its full functions in April 2001 in order that it can make the necessary advance arrangements. As it stands, Clause 116 enables the Secretary of State to confer upon the LSC such powers as he considers will help it to carry out its full functions. The National Assembly similarly is enabled to confer such powers on the CETW.
	However, the transition between the two funding councils and the new councils will be complex and we must make transitional provisions for the LSC and the CETW to take responsibility for a number of the FEFCs' remaining statutory functions or other responsibilities. They include requirements--for which the amendment makes specific provision--to complete the final accounts of the FEFCs; to make a report to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly on the previous year's provision for disabled people under the terms of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act; and to take over the FEFCs' responsibilities in any legal proceedings in which they may be involved at the point of dissolution.
	Amendments Nos. 245, 250 and 258 provide for that period of transition before the LSC and the CETW assume their full functions from April 2001. The LSC and CETW can become legal entities once the first two council members--namely, the chairman and the chief executive--are appointed. They also provide the framework to enable the FEFCs for England and for Wales to help in that process.
	The amendments provide the necessary provisions for an orderly and efficient transfer to our new structures and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for such a detailed explanation of those arrangements. Perhaps I may ask some residual questions which arise from them.
	First, the noble Baroness will understand that those members of staff throughout the country who work for TECs will be very anxious at this moment about precisely what the future holds for them and whether or not they will be in a job. The noble Baroness has given us a great deal of detail this evening, but it would be helpful to know what is the time-scale for them knowing whether or not there is a future for them with the new bodies and the time by which they will have some indication of where they stand.
	Secondly, it is my understanding that TECs are predominantly made up of voluntary members. I am not sure of the arrangements for paying allowances and expenses of one sort or another. But my understanding is that the members of the national skills council will all be salaried. I am not the only person who was fairly shocked this week to learn that the salary for the RDA chairman for only two days per week was £44,500 rising to £66,000 for three days per week. That is even more than the salary for a Member of Parliament. It would be helpful to know what salary the Government have in mind for the chairman, the chief executive and other members of the national board.
	Thirdly, is the noble Baroness in a position to say what budget has been set aside for the two standing committees: the young people's committee and the adult learning committee? They may be the forerunners of many others. What is the budget for paying those allowances as set out in the schedule, for the housing and servicing of those committees and for the logistics of keeping those committees in being?
	Fourthly, there are to be 47 councils with more than a dozen members on each plus the members for the national council. That will involve a massive recruitment campaign. It would be helpful to know from the Minister when that campaign will start. The Minister has referred to chairmen and chief executives, but it will be a huge campaign. As I understand it, all the appointments will be subject to Nolan procedures. The applications must all be processed. We were told by one Minister in another department this week that the appointment of the latest replacement for Jennie Page at the Dome could not be subject to the Nolan procedures because it would take too long; that it would take about six months to complete the process. What is the time-scale envisaged by the Government to have all the members of each of those committees in place, ready to do their job, having completed the sifting of the applications, the recruitment, and compliance with the Nolan procedures for approving those appointments? Each and every appointment--not only of those on the boards of the local and national skills councils but also of every single member of staff who is to work for them--must be approved by the Secretary of State if one accepts what is written on the face of the Bill.
	There are some other important points. The Minister explained in part the TUPE arrangements. I understand that the negotiations in relation to that are still ongoing. But at the end of the day, those in most immediate need of information are those who are presently working with and for the TECs who may be in or out of work as a result of these changes.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to endorse the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to thank the Minister for the clarification given in the draft clauses about the transition arrangements.
	I echo the concerns expressed about the position of people in the TECs. There is real concern among those employed by TECs as to where they will be. I urge the Minister to speed as much as possible the issuing of the requisite regulations so that people may know what their position will be.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for listing a number of questions. As regards the staff in the TECs, I entirely accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They are bound to be anxious about their future; that will always be the case when major changes of this sort are being made. She asked about the timescale. As I have said, we shall be publishing a timetable for handling transfers by the end of March, a copy of which I shall send to the noble Baroness. I hope that that will provide answers to many of the staff who may want to make a transfer under TUPE during the summer and early autumn.
	Perhaps I may clarify another point raised by the noble Baroness. The staff of the council are not appointed by the Secretary of State, only the council members. With the exception of the chief executive of the national council, which will be an appointment made by the Secretary of State, the staff will be appointed by the councils.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Schedule 1(5)(1)on page 56 states:
	"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
	However, subparagraph (3) states:
	"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".

Baroness Blackstone: The staff of the learning councils, whether national or local, will not be appointed by the Secretary of State but by the council members when established.
	The noble Baroness also asked about salaries. The salaries of the successful candidates must obviously be commensurate with the extensive responsibilities they are likely to undertake and will vary a great deal. They will depend on the size of the LSC and the number of staff employed. However, we would expect the salaries of chief executives of the local learning and skills councils to range between £50,000 to £80,000. The members will be paid expenses but there is no present intention to pay them salaries.
	The noble Baroness asked about the budget for the adult and young people's standing committees. That will be a matter for the LSC when established.

Baroness Blatch: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Under the heading "Salaries, pensions, etc", Schedule 1(4) states:
	"The Council must pay in respect of its members such salaries and fees and such travelling, subsistence and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".

Baroness Blackstone: That is exactly right and is what I said. I said that this would be a matter for the Secretary of State to determine. I mentioned that expenses would be paid. We will pay salaries to national council members. I correct myself on that point. However, the amount has not yet been determined by the Secretary of State.
	I turn to the budget for the standing committees. That will be a matter for the national LSC to determine.
	The noble Baroness also referred to the issue of recruitment to the 47 councils. Of course, this will be a very onerous task. Again, plans are already in place for this recruitment. It will take place during the summer, through to the autumn. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for that correction. However, could she now refer back to paragraph 5 of Schedule l, which appears under the heading of "Staff", and explain something to me? The paragraph reads as follows:
	"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit ... A person is to be appointed as an employee of the Council on such terms (including terms as to remuneration and allowances) as the Council may determine ... A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
	Can the noble Baroness tell me what that means?

Baroness Blackstone: The general terms and conditions of the employment policies of the LSC need approval by the Secretary of State, but not the individual staff who will be appointed. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
	We have not yet published or decided on some of the details on which the noble Baroness is now asking for information. However, we shall be publishing such details as soon as decisions have been made. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives the information that she has requested.

Baroness Blatch: I am partly grateful for that response. However, my understanding of paragraph 5 is as follows. Paragraph 5(1) says:
	"The Council may appoint such employees",
	and paragraph 5(2) refers to remuneration, allowances and conditions. Subparagraph (3) says:
	"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
	Therefore, anything under subparagraph (3) requires the Secretary of State's approval, including the appointments, the conditions and the level of remuneration and allowances.

Baroness Blackstone: I have just said that this paragraph implies that the general terms and conditions of the employment policies of the LSC will need approval. It is not that the Secretary of State will give approval to the appointment of the individual staff. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Baroness Blatch: It is just symptomatic of the drafting of the Bill. I shall not take this matter any further, but there are many questions begging about the drafting here. There is some concern about the appointment of 5,000 staff who will have to undergo the Nolan procedures all in the space of the summer holiday months when most people are out of their offices in any event. In particular, it seems to me that it will be people from local authorities and public authorities who will be making applications--

Baroness Blackstone: The Nolan procedures apply to the appointment of members of the councils, both locally and nationally. The appointment of staff is a rather different matter.

Baroness Blatch: I was referring to the appointment of members. I did in fact say that I was talking about the 5,000 people who will be appointed as members. There will also be an issue as regards staff. This does not apply just to members; a procedure will have to be undertaken for the appointment of staff.
	The noble Baroness said that it would be end of March before the Government would publish a paper dealing with the transfer of staff from the TECs to the new councils--or not, as the case may be. That is fine for those who will be transferred because their future will be secure. However, can the Minister say what period of notice will be given to those who will not be transferred?

Baroness Blackstone: I am not quite clear as to where the noble Baroness derived the figure of 5,000 members. That is why I was somewhat confused and thought that she was referring to the appointment of staff.
	I can tell the noble Baroness that the issue of those who will not be transferred will be decided during the course of the period in which people make applications for posts in various different parts of the system. Where people apply for posts will depend on their particular expertise, and whether they are appointed will depend on whether that expertise is needed in the particular organisations and in the localities where they are working. I cannot really say any more than that at this point in time.

Baroness Blatch: I understand that. I am culpable as regards the confusion over the figure of 5,000. My figures referred to staff and members. However, there is a real issue as regards using the Nolan procedures to appoint all the members and have them in place by the autumn and to recruit staff simultaneously. My concern with regard to the staff of TECs is not so much with the process of transferring staff from TECs to the new councils, as it will be a matter for the staff concerned whether they wish to apply for that; I am concerned about those who either are not eligible to apply or who are unsuccessful when they apply. What form of notice will they be given and what will be the severance terms if they are to lose their jobs?

Baroness Blackstone: That would depend on the circumstances. All the staff of TECs have their own terms and conditions. Their contracts will determine the notice period. There is no single system. Training and enterprise councils across the country vary a great deal in this respect. The position will depend on the individual contracts that have been drawn up by individual TECs.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 84 [Dissolution of FEFC for Wales]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 201:
	Page 36, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I should not like to see the Further Education Funding Council for Wales dissolved without some tribute being paid to it for eight years of excellent work under the direction of Professor John Andrews CBE, who is due to retire in May. I had a hand in its establishment as a council in May 1992, along with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Currently both operate within the overarching structure of the Welsh funding councils.
	The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, saw Wales as being very much in the lead in bringing about a truly comprehensive post-16 lifelong education service. As a consequence, the committee commended the Welsh concept of a joint executive bringing further and higher education more closely together. On 1st April 1999, a joint executive for the Scottish funding councils for further and higher education came into being which follows the model successfully adopted by the Welsh funding councils. It is not often that we are able to teach the Scots a trick or two!
	I am glad to say that the Education and Training Action Group in Wales has recommended that,
	"the existing joint secretariat embracing Higher Education and Further Education should be maintained and built upon".
	As I understand it, that is to happen under this Bill.
	There have been enormous benefits from the establishment of the Welsh funding councils with a joint executive, not only with regard to the integration of support functions, such as audit, management information systems and financial health monitoring, but also in extending the links between the further and higher education sectors. By 1996--well before FE institutions in other areas of the UK--all Welsh FE sector colleges were connected to the resources of the Joint Academic Network (JANET), and thus to the Internet, via higher education institutions in Wales. The Welsh funding councils are now planning a video services network for further and higher education institutions in Wales which will benefit all clients of the institutions, students and employers.
	Successive annual reports have shown the progress of the FEFCW year by year. I have a formidable list of the council's achievements, but at this late hour I shall spare the Committee recital of them. Nevertheless, there has been a first-class list of achievements in eight years.
	I am sure that the Minister will wish to endorse my appreciation of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and its work. I hope that she will tell me what will replace it and how it will be replaced. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for inviting me to endorse the tribute that he paid to the FEFCW. I understand the concern he raised. Quite rightly, the noble Lord is seeking assurances about how its dissolution and the transfer to the new regime is to be handled. I am very pleased that he has given me the opportunity to clarify the position.
	In Wales, the situation is somewhat more straightforward than it is in England. All the assets, rights and liabilities of the FEFCW will be transferred to the CETW on the day appointed for its dissolution, when the CETW takes on its full functions. There is no need for transfer schemes equivalent to those provided for England through Amendment No. 200.
	However, the Assembly needs to take action to deal with such property and other assets as are returned to it by TECs under the terms of their contracts with the Assembly. Such property should be used for the benefit of future education and training provision in Wales. It may well be that we shall need some provision similar to that for England which is set out in Amendment No. 202. However, the Assembly is currently considering its position, and if it decides that such provision is necessary, the Government will bring forward the necessary amendments at a later stage.
	With that explanation and assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful yet again to the Minister for explaining what is to happen when the Further Education Funding Council for Wales is dissolved. She will know that what concerns me is the maintenance of the quality of service that the FEFCW has given. I do not think that one can put that into statute. None the less, I am sure that the Minister shares my hope that such excellence will continue to thrive under the new arrangements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 84 agreed to.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 202:
	After Clause 84, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:TRANSFERS: ENGLAND
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of his property, rights and liabilities to any of the listed persons.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of the property, rights and liabilities of a listed person to any other listed person.
	(3) The listed persons are--
	(a) the Learning and Skills Council for England;
	(b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;
	(c) the Adult Learning Inspectorate.
	(4) A scheme under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
	(5) A scheme under this section comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
	(6) When a scheme under this section comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the property, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
	(7) If a scheme under subsection (1) includes provision for the transfer of liabilities, the day specified by the scheme for it to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.
	(8) The day specified by a scheme under subsection (2) for the scheme to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.
	(9) This section applies in relation to England only.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 85 [Persons under 19]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 202A:
	Page 37, line 2, at end insert ("provided that subsection (2) shall not apply to any course intended to promote the personal, social, moral or physical development of an individual").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 202A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202B.
	These amendments are essentially probing amendments. As it stands, Clause 85, supplemented by Clauses 87 and 88, would seem to preclude the funding body--defined either as the learning and skills council, the LEA or any other body designated by the Secretary of State--from funding any course of education or training for a 16 to 19 year-old which does not lead to an externally recognised qualification. Subsection (4) clearly makes allowance for modular courses, but they still need explicitly to be part of an externally recognised qualification system.
	Amendment No. 202A seeks to make explicit that students who need to add to their current qualification programme should have the right to funding for enrichment programmes. In addition, other young people aged 16-18--and, in some cases, the socially excluded--should have access to funded courses that may have the function of building confidence or of beginning to address basic skill needs in order to encourage them on to further stages of learning. That would require the provider to ensure that the provision passed the test set out in the original stem Act and therefore would not be frivolous in nature. The LSC would set a tariff system which would ensure that funding was provided on an equitable basis for all such learners. The amendment would not force the LSC to fund beyond the funds at its disposal.
	I turn to Amendment No. 202B, which picks up the same issue in relation to the old Schedule 2 and non-Schedule 2 issues. As I understood it, the purpose of the Bill was to abolish that distinction. Yet it would seem that Clause 86, by creating a list of qualifications and restricting the powers of the funding body in relation to any other provision, effectively recreates Schedule 2. The practical effect is that any course leading to a qualification of any kind that is not externally approved will be difficult for the funding body to support, because it will have difficulty in ensuring that the public moneys it disburses are not used to pay for the qualification--fees, assessment costs and so forth.
	The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that, where an employer or an individual makes a substantial contribution to the cost of his learning, he should not be completely precluded from accessing public support. It would permit providers to offer adult and community learning in its broadest sense--which will be of use to the learner--with some support from public funds within the range of the LSC's budget. That budget will be set by the LSC in relation to its own priorities and the range of provision that it is able to support. In other words, the amendment would not mean that the LSC would have to fund all learning.
	The restriction to funding only externally approved qualifications will inhibit the growth of new qualifications, which will not be able to be offered until they have been approved. That would stultify the development of new qualifications and could impact on the development of open and distance learning in particular. As it stands, an unemployed person attending a course at a college cannot access public funds for the qualification--fees, assessment costs and so forth--because there is no mechanism to support him. Around 60 per cent of current qualifications are outside the national qualifications framework. Although that will change as more are approved, it is by no means clear that they all will be. That has serious implications for a large number of current students.
	From these Benches we cannot believe, given the emphasis on the social exclusion agenda, that the wider areas of education and training covered by the amendments would be precluded from funding. We greatly hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and to give us an assurance that that is not what is intended. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Amendment No. 202C is in this group. We are back with the issue of local flexibility and institutional autonomy. As Clause 86 is drafted, it requires the LSC to seek to secure that public funding is not used to pay for the cost of qualifications from external bodies which are not approved by the Secretary of State or a body designated by him. It does not directly prohibit the LSC from providing funding for courses leading to such outcomes, but there is a great deal of concern that in practice it may well have that effect.
	That may arise simply because, although there are other mechanisms which the LSC could use to try to ensure that its statutory obligations are met, such as imposing a condition for funding on providers not to spend LSC moneys on non-approved qualifications, any such mechanisms would be cumbersome to police and difficult to justify. For example, audit systems will need to check how providers have used LSC resources. In practice, it will be difficult to tell whether LSC or other moneys have been used to pay examination or assessment costs. In addition, in an environment in which the LSC is likely to face more demands than it has resources available to meet, it will always need to face the question of priorities. In such circumstances, it will be hard to justify funding a provision which does not lead to a nationally approved outcome, even where some form of certification of that outcome may be of benefit to learners. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	The effect of the clause is likely to be that the LSC will be driven to funding either a provision which leads to an externally approved qualification or one which leads to no certificate. If the LSC follows that path, it is likely to steer providers towards not offering certification routes at all to those who would currently gain a certificate which may not be considered an externally approved qualification. That would lead to a diminution in the opportunities available for adults for whom a certificate can provide a passport into a job, further study or increased self esteem, and it could also result in a diminution in the skills that employers need, both in technical areas which may not fall into obvious national categories, and in key or basic skills which underpin effective performance at work.
	Exclusion from funding support of provision leading to a qualification which does not satisfy national approval criteria also fails to recognise the many thousands of courses that currently gain certification but are unlikely to gain the status of an external qualification. Sixty per cent of the courses studied by adults in further education colleges currently stand outside the national qualifications framework--that is, those courses accredited by QCA. While it is accepted that some diminution and streamlining of existing courses should take place, it would clearly be inappropriate to lose funding for a vast number of courses that are of considerable value to learners, have come through an approval process by an awarding body but are unlikely in all cases to gain accreditation via the QCA.
	It will also be important to know whether or not courses--I shall give an illustrative list--which appear in current Schedule 2(a) will receive funding from the LSC under Clause 86, and indeed whether such courses will receive funding in full, as they do now, or whether support will be curtailed in some way. I shall give an illustrative sample of the courses: electrical installation; data processing and information systems; the Edexcel National Certificate in Civil Engineering Studies; the Institute of Legal Executives Certificate in Charity Administration; the Institute of Welfare Officers Certificate and Diploma in Welfare Studies; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Fishing Vessel Deck Officer Class 2; National Proficiency Tests Council course in farm maintenance; the Basic Certificate in British sign language; Units in Desk-top Publishing, History of Theatre, Study Skills and Choral Singing; Photography; Certificate in Food Safety; Developing Childminding Practice; and Basic Expedition Leader Award.
	As I said, that is no more than an illustrative list. But not only would any restriction of that list have an adverse effect on existing learners and their employers, it would negate the whole effect of abolishing the current divide between approved and non-approved learning embodied in Schedule 2. The purpose of abolishing that distinction was understood to be to open up a much wider range of learning opportunities than currently exist and in doing so to enrich and deepen the learning culture. If the Government intend to continue with an approach which seeks to draw a distinction between approved and non-approved types of learning, at what point do they draw the line between courses and qualifications, between those which lead to certification and those which do not? Or do they have some other definition in mind? It would be helpful to know what that is.
	Again we come back to local flexibility--reading the local skills and needs market--and actually providing those courses that not only lead to approved qualifications, but also enhance the learning experience of many people in the local area, which, as I understand it, is one of the aims of the Bill.

Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for tabling what are essentially probing amendments. I very much hope that what I am able to say will provide them with the necessary reassurance. The social exclusion agenda is extremely important to the Government and we have every intention of pursuing it with not just commitment but passionate commitment. That includes courses like basic skills for adults. I entirely accept that there is a need for some local flexibility. We shall expect the local learning and skills councils to look at the needs of the local labour market and respond to it.
	The amendments are not necessary. In giving the reason, perhaps I may begin with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Clause 85 applies only to those courses that lead to external qualifications; that is, qualifications which are awarded or accredited by an outside body. It does not apply to courses which do not lead to external qualifications, even if they are accredited in some other way, as is the case, for example, with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Such provision, of course, forms an essential part of the curriculum and there is absolutely no intention to preclude it from funding. Since the approval mechanism set out in Clauses 85 to 91 will not apply, it will simply be for the department and the LSC, for the National Assembly and the CETW, to make decisions about funding for this kind of activity. We very much welcome the work that is done under this provision.
	Turning to Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C, I should start by saying that I believe that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, may have slightly misunderstood our intentions. That is understandable; I think I should have done the same given the technicality of the clauses. Let me repeat my earlier reassurance. Clause 86 does not apply to, and therefore does not affect, the availability of public funding for learning provision other than external qualifications. It does not apply to the costs of providing courses. And it does not apply to the costs of non-external qualifications--that is, those that are less formally certificated. Decisions about the funding of this kind of provision will be determined by the LSC and CETW, together with my department and the National Assembly respectively. I hope that that reassurance is helpful.
	For adult learners, we want to ensure that payments made from public funds to awarding bodies for the costs associated with taking an external qualification provide a sound investment for the future. We therefore believe that such payments, whether or not they meet the full cost of the fees, should be made only in relation to external qualifications which have met robust approval criteria. Again, that is a matter of ensuring that the qualifications are worthwhile and worthy, so that students are not misled and are not taking qualifications which have not met those approval criteria. While QCA accreditation is a valuable and straightforward mark of quality, approval will reflect the appropriateness of the qualification for attracting public funding.
	Although the funding framework is still being determined through consultation, it is clear that for most working adults, 100 per cent public funding will not be available in most cases. That has always been the case. There is an expectation that adult learners will contribute to the cost of their courses in further education. It will be important that public funding bodies such as the LSC, CETW and LEAs exercise control to ensure that any funds which are used for payment of fees to awarding bodies are used only in respect of approved external qualifications.
	I hope that that reassurance is adequate and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on these issues. In the light of her remarks, and now that they are on the record, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 85 agreed to.
	Clause 86 [Persons over 19]:
	[Amendment No. 202B not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 202C:
	Page 37, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) The requirement in subsection (2) above shall not apply to any programme of study leading to a certificate or other award which does not constitute a qualification.").

Baroness Blatch: I beg to move Amendment No. 202C. Before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may clarify two matters. First, I was unsure whether the Minister suggested that the points I sought to make were in the wrong place. The noble Baroness appeared to suggest that Clause 86 was not the appropriate place. Therefore, is it simply a matter of these points being attached to the wrong clause, or are they dealt with more appropriately elsewhere in the Bill?
	Secondly, currently 60 per cent of the courses studied by adults in further education colleges stand outside the national qualifications framework; that is, courses accredited by QCA. Does it mean that that will not be the case in future and unless they are approved by the Secretary of State they will not qualify even for partial funding?

Baroness Blackstone: I did not intend to imply that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness was not in the right place. If I gave that impression I apologise. In answer to her question, "qualification" is defined in the legislation in the context of an external qualification. The term "qualification" has not been defined because it is difficult to sum up what it is in a few words. At its simplest, it is a report, certificate or other record specifying the attainment of the holder and intended to be used as evidence of that attainment. But that says nothing about what has actually been attained. A qualification could also be described as a recognition that a required standard of knowledge, skill, aptitude or capability has been demonstrated, but that says nothing about the conditions, systems and processes surrounding the demonstration of attainment and the assessment of moderation; for instance, pre-determined criteria to measure attainment to the appropriate level and to ensure that there is objective measurement to assure performance standards at the time and over time. All these things matter. Therefore, we shall continue to leave the term undefined in legislation and instead rely on the quality assurance measures taken by the QCA for accreditation to determine the nature of qualifications. I thought that I should add that, although I am not sure that it directly addresses the questions that the noble Baroness puts.
	Under the existing arrangements the Secretary of State must approve qualifications of the kind that the noble Baroness listed. Although we are now abolishing the difference between vocational and non-vocational qualifications, from the point of view of the funding regime it will be necessary for approval to be given. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention that courses of this kind will not continue to be funded; they will be.

Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether it is due to the lateness of the hour or that we are so far through the Bill that I have become muddled by the Minister's response. Sixty per cent of the courses stand outside the framework and are accredited by QCA. I am not sure whether that system is to be replaced and courses will come within a framework whereby they must all be approved by the Secretary of State. I know that it is the intention of the Government that there should not be any less education going on out there and that all the courses that people want to do, and which meet the skills need of local people, should be provided. While I am aware of the aspiration, I am concerned about what it means in practice. Which of these courses is likely to be vulnerable under the new system?

Baroness Blackstone: I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that the courses will not be vulnerable under the new system. They will not be subject to approval and they can otherwise fall within the scope of funding by the LSC. Therefore, Clause 86 does not apply to them and they can continue to be funded by the LSC.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 203:
	Page 38, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) Payment may also be made for the Open College Network course activity other than that leading to external qualifications in respect of--
	(a) devising, administering, verifying or certifying the qualification;
	(b) setting or moderating examinations for the purposes of qualifications;
	(c) registering, assessing or examining candidates.").

Lord Addington: This amendment is designed to extract from the Government an indication as to whether the workings of the national Open College Network courses are safe under the provisions of the Bill. Having listened to the Minister, I think that the answer is "yes". If the noble Baroness will confirm that, I shall happily withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: I am happy to confirm that. I shall conclude on that note.

Lord Addington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
	Clause 86 agreed to.
	Clauses 87 to 92 agreed to.
	Clause 93 [Qualifying accounts]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 204:
	Page 40, line 32, at beginning insert--
	("( ) In its application to Wales this section is to have effect as if references to the Secretary of State were to the National Assembly.").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 206, 208, 213, 219, 227, and 229 to 233.
	Members of the Committee will have noted that Clause 94, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising grants to individuals, applies to Wales. Subsection (7) enables that. A similar subsection at the end of Clause 110 deals with assessments relating to people with learning difficulties, but a raft of clauses around those two apply to England only. I am, frankly, mystified. In order to gain clarification, I have applied the enabling subsection to probe why those clauses do not apply to Wales.
	Clause 93 relates to qualifying accounts held by an individual or an institution, and the conditions attached to such holdings which may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Why cannot the National Assembly make such regulations in Wales? If it is necessary to empower the Secretary of State by primary legislation on the face of the Bill, why is it not necessary to empower the National Assembly similarly by primary legislation? Are the Government applying a different interpretation to primary legislation in England from in Wales? In other words, are the Government saying that what requires primary legislation in England does not require primary legislation in Wales; and that the same legislative requirement can be achieved by secondary legislation in Wales? If so, the definition of primary and secondary legislation, and the scope, need to be looked at afresh by legal and constitutional experts.
	What I have said about Amendment No. 204 to Clause 93 applies to Amendment No. 206 to Clause 96. That clause enables the Secretary of State by order to establish a further education corporation. It does not apply to Wales. My amendment seeks to empower the National Assembly to take over the Secretary of State's powers should the need arise. We may not currently foresee such a need, but who can say that it will not arise in future?
	The absence of a Welsh application of this clause contrasts with the clear application of Clause 98 and the rigours of Schedule 7 to Wales. I conclude that the prospect of the closure of sixth forms up and down the land is more imminent than the likelihood of establishing new further education corporations. I doubt whether the educational world has yet woken up to that.
	Clause 97, about the designation of FE institutions for funding purposes, is not applicable to Wales. My Amendment No. 208 seeks to make the provision apply. Again, I should like a comment from the Minister.
	Clauses 99, 100, 102, 103 and 108 come under the heading of support for 13 to 19 year-olds. None of those clauses applies to Wales. I have sought to amend each to enable them to be so applicable. They are important clauses relating to the provision of services to encourage, enable or assist effective participation by young people in education or training. Are these services not to be provided through the National Assembly for Wales?
	Clause 100 provides for consultation with the authorities listed. Is such consultation not required by the National Assembly for Wales? What is the position of the local education authorities empowered in Clause 101? Welsh local authorities cannot take advantage of this clause because it refers back to Clause 99, which refers to England only. Clause 102, which I have also sought to apply to Wales, also refers back to the introductory Clause 99, so that educational institutions in Wales will not be obliged to provide information as the clause requires. My Amendment No. 227 seeks to deal with that situation.
	I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude young people and authorities in Wales from these arrangements; neither can it be right to leave matters to the Assembly and to let the Assembly duplicate these clauses in secondary legislation. That would be wasteful in time and effort. There are clear-cut issues here which involve people's rights. They are being resolved for England but not for Wales. I therefore submit that the Bill is totally inadequate as far as Wales is concerned.
	Clause 103 deals with the inspection of services provided under Clause 99. I am again seeking to make it applicable to Wales. In doing so, I am, of course, showing the huge gaps in the Bill as far as proper legislative provision for Welsh needs is concerned. I find it difficult to understand the Government's thinking in this area. Are they deliberately encouraging differences to develop between the arrangements in England and in Wales or simply trusting that Wales will follow England's lead? Whatever the real explanation, I believe that they have got it wrong. They should look at the whole issue again before this Bill leaves Parliament.
	I speak to my Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 to Clause 108. At the risk of being accused of tedious repetition, I reiterate that there should be a subsection to Clause 108 to ensure that careers services in Wales can be inspected as they will be in England. I believe that that covers the totality of the arrangements. I should certainly appreciate a comment from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have listened with interest to the points that have been rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. On each of these points, I await an explanation as to whether there is no intention to create primary legislation on these aspects for Welsh matters.
	I make the point which I have made before, and which I shall continue to make, in relation to the subsection to which the noble Lord referred; namely, subsection (5) of Clause 110, which says:
	"In its application to Wales this section is to have effect as if references to the Secretary of State were to the National Assembly".
	That is highly unsatisfactory. My belief is that it is wrong to try to reinterpret a clause by inserting the words "National Assembly". Subsection (1), for example, would read:
	"Subsection (2) applies if ... (b) the [National Assembly] believes that the person will leave school at the end of his last year of compulsory schooling".
	It is a difficult enough concept that the Secretary of State should have a belief, but for the whole of the National Assembly to have a specific belief is an extremely difficult concept. I believe that the drafting of that clause, whatever may or may not be the merits of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, should be looked at again.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 93 sets out the conditions that will allow an account to qualify as an individual learning account. Broadly speaking, it is concerned with financial services-type matters. It has been a principle of the devolution settlements with both Scotland and Wales that financial services and similar matters have not been devolved. In the case of Scotland, such matters are reserved under the Scotland Act. In the case of Wales, no powers to make regulations in this field have been transferred to the Welsh Assembly. This means that the Bill should not confer these regulation-making powers directly on to the Welsh Assembly.
	Of course, this in no way means that in the future and in the light of any changes to the devolution settlement an order could not be made under the Government of Wales Act transferring these regulation-making powers to the National Assembly. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will not press his Amendment No. 204.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 206 and 208. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rightly draws our attention to the importance of ensuring that where powers under any Act have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, the power will remain transferred if the Act is amended. As always, the Committee benefits from his expert and close reading of the Bill. I hope that he will agree that this is a complex matter to resolve, especially in the very first year after devolution took place.
	I can also assure him that we will bring forward an amendment in due course which will broadly secure that where the Bill makes an amendment to any provision under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which confers a power on the Secretary of State, the power will continue to be exercisable by the National Assembly in respect of Wales. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press these amendments at this time.
	I turn finally to the group of eight amendments dealing with youth provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, treats in a similar way. Once again, I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position with respect to youth provisions in Wales. The National Assembly intends to secure services to support young people, tailored to the particular circumstances in Wales, but is still finalising its proposals. As soon as the National Assembly has completed its work, we shall be introducing amendments in due course. I am pleased to be able to assure both noble Lords that, in line with the reference made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to local flexibility in the case of Wales and the Assembly, we are seeking to work carefully to ensure that the appropriate arrangements are made.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about Clause 110(5). It applies all of Clause 110 to Wales. I do not know whether that answers his question with clarity, but I fear that I cannot go further tonight. If it has not, I shall be only too happy to write to him.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and I am delighted to understand that an amendment will be tabled in respect of my Amendments Nos. 206 and 208. With regard to youth provision, I am bound to repeat that I believe that the National Assembly should have completed its deliberations on all aspects of the Bill before it came to Parliament. We are well aware of the fact that when we had the Second Reading the National Assembly's plenary session on the policy behind the Bill had not taken place. The Minister has been honest enough to tell us that the Assembly still has not completed its work on the youth provisions, but that when it does an amendment will be presented. Once again, I believe that the lesson is very clear. It must go out from here that if the National Assembly requires legislation of us in Parliament, then we must surely be able to consider its views in advance of Committee stage.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I endorse everything that he said. It seems to me that we have to get the machinery right. It is extremely difficult for those of us who are seeking to deal with Welsh affairs to have to consider amendments before the National Assembly has come to any conclusion. It is very difficult indeed, when one is trying to put primary legislation into place, not to have the views of the National Assembly first. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Assembly our concern that it concludes its deliberations before the matter is brought before this House.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 93 agreed to.
	Clause 94 [Holders of accounts: grants]:

Lord Boardman: moved Amendment No. 205:
	Page 42, line 4, leave out from ("by") to end of line 6 and insert ("the Council").

Lord Boardman: I have not been an active participant in this Bill, but having read it and spent several hours sitting in Committee here, I have reached the conclusion that it is the most unfortunately drafted Bill I have come across in the 20 years I have been in this House. It is full of complexities and potential bureaucracy.
	I turn to my own amendment to part of Clause 94. It is an example of the bureaucracy and the confusion that arises. The clause authorises or grants the Secretary of State authority to make grants. There is a list of regulations subject to conditions which must be fulfilled. There are further regulations which may be imposed and so forth.
	I have tabled an amendment to subsection (5). That states,
	"Conditions as to the kinds of education or training which qualify may include provision for the kinds to be specified--
	(a) by the Secretary of State in a way he thinks fit"--
	I make no complaint about that--
	"or (b) if he so decides, by a person who (at the time of the specification) is designated by the Secretary of State and who specifies in a way the Secretary of State stipulates".
	Here we have further delegation of responsibility. My amendment states that it can be expressed by the Secretary of State--fair enough--or, if he so decides, by the council. The council established by Clause 1 of the Bill has responsibility for setting out the type of training required and so forth. The Secretary of State, having accepted various regulations, some of them binding and some not, and their conditions, then goes on to say that it will eventually be decided by a person designated by him.
	There is plenty of room for simplicity in the Bill, but on this matter it should be decided by the Secretary of State or, if he so decides, by the council. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to support my noble friend in his quest to introduce a little simplification. The Secretary of State is designated in many Bills as being primarily responsible for almost all actions. If every Secretary of State physically took on the jobs for which he was technically responsible, he simply would not be able to do the job he is properly there to do.
	We all know that where the Secretary of State approves every post or plan and so forth, a row of mandarins are in place to do that job in his name. He is only technically the person to carry out the specific task, which will be done by others. First, will the Minister tell the Committee why, as in subsection (5)(a) the Secretary of State may specify "as he thinks fit" and so a great deal of latitude has been provided for, it is necessary in subsection (5)(b) to provide on the face of the Bill that,
	"if he so decides, by a person who (at the time of the specification) is designated by the Secretary of State and who specifies in a way the Secretary of State stipulates"?
	Secondly, will the Minister give examples to the Committee of the kind of person and the kinds of tasks which would be so delegated?

Lord Bach: We have admired the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, this evening. He has been sitting, silent as a lamb, waiting for his amendment. It is an important amendment and if I respond to it fairly briefly, I hope that the noble Lord will not take that as a discourtesy. I cannot speak for the 20 years of experience gained by the noble Lord, but I doubt whether the Bill before us is the worst example of drafting he has ever come across. Certainly this particular clause has been deliberately worded in this way. It is not a mistake, bureaucracy gone mad, or an error of drafting. This clause is meant to be so drafted and I shall take a few minutes to explain why.
	The clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to delegate to any person the power to decide the types of learning that will attract the benefits of learning accounts. I should like to remind the noble Lord in passing that this clause and the preceding clause concern qualifying or learning accounts.
	Learning accounts will continue to be developed to fit the needs of learners and changing priorities. The provisions have deliberately been framed to give the Secretary of State and the Government appropriate flexibility. Amendment No. 205 seeks to limit that flexibility. It would allow the Secretary of State to delegate only to the LSC his power to determine which learning should be eligible.
	It may well be that the Secretary of State will delegate this power to the LSC and that the National Assembly will likewise delegate to the CETW. Clauses 10 and 38 of the Bill make express provision for the councils to be able to take on this role. But there may well be good reason in the future, and in the light of changing circumstances, to delegate this power to other bodies.
	Again, I should like to repeat what was said in an earlier debate; the word "person" used here is a legal person--an institution rather than an individual. In this instance, the LSC is the likely "person" who will make such a decision. However, this is a major Bill that is due to last for a number of years. Learning provision is developing all the time in important and exciting ways. While the LSC will have a comprehensive remit for post-16 and some other learning, we hope that, as circumstances change, other agencies may be well placed to contribute to decisions on what learning should attract the benefits of individual learning accounts.
	At the moment we do not anticipate any other bodies. It is not government policy to say that there will be other bodies. However, we are discussing a Bill which is due to last for five to 10 years and which addresses important matters such as individual learning accounts. For that reason, we do not want to constrain the Secretary of State's power to delegate this function. We believe that it would be unwise to make this primary legislation unnecessarily restrictive. The reason why this provision has been put into the clause is because it is meant to be there in order that, as this field develops over the next few years, the powers are flexible enough to ensure that individual learning accounts have a future.

Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend decides what he wishes to do about the amendment, perhaps I may make two points. First, since when has "person" been representative of a body or an organisation? It seems to me that a person is a person. There is only one connotation for "person". A body can be an organisation; an organisation can be another group of people or an institution. However, it seems to be a most extraordinary use of language to call the LSC "a person". I have no difficulty about that.
	My second point concerns the rest of the sentence. Not only does it relate to an inanimate person who, at the time of the specification, is designated by the Secretary of State, but it is a person who specifies in a way that the Secretary of State stipulates. Therefore, not only must this person, body or inanimate object determine the task given to it by the Secretary of State, but it must do so in precisely the way that the Secretary of State stipulates.
	The Secretary of State must make the decision and stipulate it, and the body must carry it out exactly according to the Secretary of State's bidding. Therefore, I do not see the point in devolving the task. If the Secretary of State is to devolve it, to do so to a person who is not a person seems to be extraordinary, and I believe that my noble friend makes a very good point.
	The noble Lord seemed to make reference to the LSC and to the fact that, in the scheme of things, the council will almost certainly carry out this work. The council can do so only under this paragraph, exactly as the Secretary of State stipulates. The word is "stipulate" and that is a fairly specific word, unless "stipulate" has some other meaning. We almost need a lexicon to accompany the reading of this Bill. If that is the case, it could refer to the council or to any other body which the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	Therefore, one could say that it is presupposed that the work will be devolved to the council. I would argue that the council should at least be left to exercise its own professional judgment as to what it should do. However, if it must do what the Secretary of State stipulates, and, as I say, it must be a person who is not a person, it seems to me that this really is gobbledegook of the first order.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: At this time of night I hesitate to rise. However, I must agree that, once again, we have an excessive use of words here, that it is gobbledegook and that, quite frankly, if Clause 94(5)(a) means what it says--that it shall be specified,
	"by the Secretary of State in a way he thinks fit"--
	it covers subsection (5)(b) and we can do away with that subsection completely.

Lord Bach: Faced with this unholy alliance at this hour of the night, I must stand firm and tell the noble Baroness something which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, knows: that the word "person" can have that meaning in Acts of Parliament because of the Interpretation Act 1978. I hope that that deals with that point once and for all this evening.
	The meaning of the phrase which I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is quick, as it were, to jump on the passing bandwagon of--not a happily phrased sentence!--is specified,
	"in a way the Secretary of State stipulates",
	is--and I suspect that Members of the Committee understand it--that the Secretary of State can lay down general rules which the designated body will follow in deciding what courses qualify. That is the meaning that it will have and it is the meaning which is now on the record. However, I now look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, whose amendment this is, wishes to do.

Lord Boardman: I find the Minister's answer very worrying and quaint. First, under the Interpretation Act "persons" may include corporate bodies, and I believe that it does. However, in general drafting of legal documents normally one does not refer to persons in that particular form. Be that as it may, the purpose of including this subsection is quite meaningless because the person will do precisely what he is told to do by the Secretary of State in the form that he is told to do it. Therefore, the Secretary of State should do it in his own name. If we interpreted all the documents coming from the Secretary of State as being his own considered resolution, we should perhaps be confusing ourselves.
	It is nonsense. The Secretary of State should keep the first part of that clause as it is, giving him the right to make his decision in that way and allocating any matters which he believes should be dealt with by the council to the council for it to deal with. The members of the council are the experts and the most appropriate people to deal with those matters. The field should not be widened in respect of some unspecified person or corporate body or whatever it may be to carry out functions exactly as he has defined them.
	I am extremely unhappy about the wording and I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on it before we reach a later stage of the Bill. In the light of what he said and the answer that he has given, which I find extremely unsatisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 94 agreed to.
	Clause 95 agreed to.
	Clause 96 [Further education corporations]:
	[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 207:
	Page 43, line 16, at end insert--
	("( ) Before an order is made under subsection (3) above, the Council must publish a report detailing the effect of the establishment of the proposed institution on education and training provision in the area of the local council in which it is located, and in any adjacent areas which may be affected."").

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that should an LEA or other body make use of the powers granted to it under Clause 96(3) to open a new 16 to 19 institution in an area, that there should be wide consultation and consideration of the knock-on effect of its establishment on other educational facilities in that area.
	In effect, the amendment is asking for an area educational impact assessment. Although there are statutory procedures for the publication of the proposals to establish a new 16-plus institution which oblige the LEA or the LSC to consider any representations made to them before submitting the proposal to the Secretary of State, they are not obliged to attach any particular weight to those representations, nor to give reasons for rejecting them. Thus, for example, they would be able to discount, if they so wished, representations about the impact which a new institution may have on existing providers, both other schools with sixth forms in the area and further education sector colleges.
	While it would obviously be unreasonable for an existing provider to have a right of veto over a proposal to establish what might be a competitor institution, it is not unreasonable to request that the LSC, as the body with a statutory duty to secure proper and reasonable provision, should show publicly the effect of the proposed reorganisation on the existing pattern of education and training provision in the area affected. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: This is a sensible proposal. I have been accused twice, I think, of accusing the Government of having a hidden agenda. On this particular occasion, I think they have. The hidden agenda relates to the illicit establishment in Hammersmith and Fulham which exists as a sixth-form college in all but name. It was established illegally; it has been existing illegally; it is still not legal. It has been receiving funding from the department, which has turned a blind eye to it for a long time. It was going to be dealt with as we left office and that has still not been done. The only point behind the power in the Bill is to make that establishment legitimate. Otherwise, I could not see the Government handing over that power to local authorities. Nevertheless, they have done that.
	When that establishment was set up in Hammersmith and Fulham, interestingly, it did have a knock-on effect on the local further education college and on other schools. It seems to me to be a common-sense proposal to have some form of consultation and understanding of what the knock-on effects will be when an establishment may have a very real impact on and may cause the demise of other establishments in the area. I support the amendment.

Lord Bach: Clause 96 is concerned not with the creation of LEA-maintained 16-19 institutions but with the transfer of such an institution to the FE sector. I emphasise straightaway that the Government expect such transfers to be rare. They will only take place with the consent of both the governing body of the institution and of the LEA which maintains it, as we believe subsection (2)(b) makes clear.
	When establishing or incorporating an FE institution, there must be statutory consultation with a period for objections from any party. Such objections currently fall to the FEFC and will, from April 2001, fall to the LSC for consideration before the Secretary of State makes a final decision. The incorporation of an existing institution would have minimal or no impact on other local learning providers, since incorporation effects a change in the character of an institution and not a change in the learning opportunities it offers. We believe it would be excessively and unnecessarily bureaucratic to require the LSC to undertake the detailed analysis proposed by Amendment No. 207. The original establishment of the institution would have been subject to statutory proposals. Any decision by the school organisation committee or the schools adjudicator to take forward these proposals would have taken account of issues such as the need for places and the impact of the proposed new institution on schools and other post-16 providers in the area. Incorporation would not give rise to any new impact in that sense.
	Furthermore, in preparing their annual plans, each local LSC will have to consider the learning needs of the local population and propose how it intends to carry out its functions in order that those needs be met. Its consideration of any proposals for the incorporation of an existing institution within its area would be reflected in its plans.
	I hope that that answer gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness and that she will not press the amendment at this stage.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness returns to the matter, from the way in which the Minister responded, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, tabled an amendment in the wrong place. She spoke to the establishment of a sixth form centre or college. I supported the noble Baroness along those lines and spoke specifically to the establishment of a sixth form. I understand the original mistake, which the noble Lord rightly pointed out. However, he then proceeded to reply on the basis of what was understood to have been the amendment in the first place, not to the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or myself.
	As I understand it, the idea behind the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness was the power to establish a sixth form centre. Wherever such power lies within the Bill, this amendment should apply. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could at least respond to the particular point made rather than to the amendment which was tabled in the wrong place.

Lord Bach: I am not attempting to stand on a legal nicety. However, with the greatest respect, it is important that amendments are tabled in the right place. I can only assume, if they are tabled under Clause 96, that that is where they are meant to be. If I have missed the point here--looking at the clock I see what time of the morning it now is--it may be that the noble Baroness will have the opportunity to table the amendment in the appropriate place for discussion on Thursday; I know not. That is a matter for her. However, I have said all I want to say about the amendment where it stands in the Bill at present.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister. I confess that I had read this clause as giving provision to establish a new sixth form centre of some sort. From what he says it clearly does not. Given the time of morning, perhaps the sensible course would be for us to read and study what he has said, consider the matter again and possibly bring the amendment back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 96 agreed to.
	Clause 97 [Further education institutions: designation]:
	[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
	Clause 97 agreed to.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.